From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joe Buck To: hjl@lucon.org (H.J. Lu) Cc: martin@mira.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de, medtekh@orc.ru, egcs@egcs.cygnus.com Subject: Re: gcc-2.7 creates faster code than pgcc-1.1.1 Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 17:03:00 -0000 Message-id: <199903050102.RAA06944@atrus.synopsys.com> In-reply-to: < m10Iil3-000393C@ocean.lucon.org >; from "H.J. Lu" at Mar 4, 99 4:46 pm References: X-SW-Source: 1999-03/msg00194.html > > Isn't (0 & REGNO (operands[0]) == 0) always 0? Why isn't the condition > > just deleted? > > > > It is easier to back it out if we decide it is not a good idea after > all. If so, isn't the usual gcc convention to do that #if 0 #endif ? From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joe Buck To: hjl@lucon.org (H.J. Lu) Cc: martin@mira.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de, medtekh@orc.ru, egcs@egcs.cygnus.com Subject: Re: gcc-2.7 creates faster code than pgcc-1.1.1 Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 23:46:00 -0000 Message-ID: <199903050102.RAA06944@atrus.synopsys.com> References: X-SW-Source: 1999-03n/msg00195.html Message-ID: <19990331234600.pmZYTQt4h4YVkmBTC_Iu-pAzvrzRj2r7X-2QX3yDUEc@z> > > Isn't (0 & REGNO (operands[0]) == 0) always 0? Why isn't the condition > > just deleted? > > > > It is easier to back it out if we decide it is not a good idea after > all. If so, isn't the usual gcc convention to do that #if 0 #endif ?