From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31025 invoked by alias); 13 May 2003 13:17:32 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 30891 invoked from network); 13 May 2003 13:17:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu) (128.122.140.213) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 May 2003 13:17:31 -0000 Received: by vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (4.1/1.34) id AA13680; Tue, 13 May 03 09:22:15 EDT Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 13:17:00 -0000 From: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) Message-Id: <10305131322.AA13680@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> To: dnovillo@redhat.com Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] Out of SSA status and issues Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg01296.txt.bz2 I see nothing wrong in replacing 'i + 9' with '*p + 9'. It would probably not be efficient, but I can't see it being wrong. If an optimizer pessimizes the code, I'd consider that "wrong". This isn't a machine-dependent issue: with CPU speeds the way they are, a memory reference is *always* many times more expensive than an addition.