------- Comment #2 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-09 09:59 -------
Maybe we can fix this in expand instead: if we see (x & CONST) and CONST is a
masking constant that isn't a legitimate constant for the the target, then see
if the sum of the rtx_cost of expressing the mask as shifts is less than the
rtx_cost of a load and an AND.
I think (but I'm not sure...) that if you do this with a peephole, you're too
late to avoid the constant pool.
Is this also a size issue?
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2009-07-09 09:59:30
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40697
