From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-prs-return-34970-listarch-gcc-prs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 9370 invoked by alias); 11 May 2003 08:56:01 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-prs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 9353 invoked by uid 71); 11 May 2003 08:56:01 -0000
Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 08:56:00 -0000
Message-ID: <20030511085601.9352.qmail@sources.redhat.com>
To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org,
From: Dan Nicolaescu <dann@ics.uci.edu>
Subject: Re: optimization/5739: [sparc] "const" and "pure" function attributes pessimize code
Reply-To: Dan Nicolaescu <dann@ics.uci.edu>
X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg01058.txt.bz2
List-Id: <gcc-prs.sourceware.org>

The following reply was made to PR optimization/5739; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Dan Nicolaescu <dann@ics.uci.edu>
To: Dara Hazeghi <dhazeghi@yahoo.com>
Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: optimization/5739: [sparc] "const" and "pure" function attributes pessimize code
Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 01:52:26 -0700

 I can confirm that the problem is still present in mainline cvs. Both
 in 32 and 64-bit sparc configurations.
 
 It also occurs for x86, but the difference in generated code is much
 smaller.