From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8808 invoked by alias); 10 May 2003 07:26:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 8715 invoked by uid 71); 10 May 2003 07:26:01 -0000 Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 07:26:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030510072601.8714.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Dara Hazeghi Subject: Re: target/5075: [sh-elf] optimize worse, save pr in leaf function Reply-To: Dara Hazeghi X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00895.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR target/5075; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Dara Hazeghi To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, bero@bekkoame.ne.jp, amylaar@redhat.com, aoliva@redhat.com Cc: Subject: Re: target/5075: [sh-elf] optimize worse, save pr in leaf function Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 00:24:16 -0700 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit- trail&database=gcc&pr=5075 Hello, this is a very old PR. I tried the testcase in question on sh-linux with -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer, using gcc 3.2.3, 3.3 branch and mainline and invariably got: ... func: mov r4,r0 rts add r5,r0 .size func, .-func ... This looks like the code that the submitter wants (and was produced in 3.0.1). I think this report can be closed. Can the submitter confirm whether this bug still occurs for them on current versions of gcc? Thanks, Dara