From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2895 invoked by alias); 20 Jun 2005 15:36:38 -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 2712 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Jun 2005 15:36:20 -0000 Received: from bethe.phy.uc.edu (HELO bethe.phy.uc.edu) (129.137.4.14) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Mon, 20 Jun 2005 15:36:20 +0000 Received: from [172.30.4.162] (zhivago.erc-wireless.uc.edu [172.30.4.162]) by bethe.phy.uc.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j5KFaITw024012; Mon, 20 Jun 2005 11:36:18 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87r7ex82ur.fsf@osv.topcon.com> References: <878y159mhr.fsf@osv.topcon.com> <17078.52477.408454.106678@zapata.pink> <44a7432710d6ca83042f60c9fbab58d9@physics.uc.edu> <87zmtl84eo.fsf@osv.topcon.com> <87r7ex82ur.fsf@osv.topcon.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org From: Andrew Pinski Subject: Re: How to replace -O1 with corresponding -f's? Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 15:36:00 -0000 To: Sergei Organov X-Spam-Score: -100 () USER_IN_WHITELIST X-SW-Source: 2005-06/txt/msg00909.txt.bz2 On Jun 20, 2005, at 11:28 AM, Sergei Organov wrote: > Andrew Pinski writes: > >> On Jun 20, 2005, at 10:54 AM, Sergei Organov wrote: >> >>> so SYMBOL_FLAG_SMALL (flags 0x6 vs 0x2) is somehow being missed when >>> -O1 >> >>> is turned on. Seems to be something at tree-to-RTX conversion time. >>> Constant folding? >> >> No, it would mean that the target says that this is not a small data. >> Also try it with the following code and you will see there is no >> difference: >> >> double osvf() { return 314314314; } > > There is no difference in the sense that here both -O0 and -O1 behave > roughly the same. So the problem is with detecting "smallness" for true > constants by the target, right? I think the bug is in rs6000_elf_in_small_data_p but since I have not debuged it yet I don't know for sure. Could you file a bug? This is a target bug. -- Pinski