From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22108 invoked by alias); 23 Apr 2002 06:30:36 -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 22094 invoked from network); 23 Apr 2002 06:30:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO Angel.zoy.org) (12.236.86.18) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 Apr 2002 06:30:34 -0000 Received: by Angel.zoy.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 71549B8CD; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 23:30:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 00:45:00 -0000 From: Michel LESPINASSE To: Roger Sayle Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Richard Henderson , Jan Hubicka Subject: Re: GCC performance regression - its memset! Message-ID: <20020423063033.GB21922@zoy.org> References: <20020423060709.GA21922@zoy.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020423060709.GA21922@zoy.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg01143.txt.bz2 My test case was actually wrong - the final test should be with table[62] not table[63]. But, with this correction, it does exhibit the bug I was mentionning. Sorry for the mistake :/ On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 11:07:09PM -0700, Michel LESPINASSE wrote: > This option actually generates invalid code for me. Here is a test case: > ------------------- cut here ----------------- > #include > > short table[64]; > > int main (void) > { > int i; > > for (i = 0; i < 64; i++) > table[i] = 1234; > > memset (table, 0, 63 * sizeof(short)); > > return (table[63] != 0); > } > ------------------- cut here ----------------- > This code should return 0, however it returns 1 (compiled with -O3 > -minline-all-stringops) -- Michel "Walken" LESPINASSE Is this the best that god can do ? Then I'm not impressed.