------- Comment #3 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-09 10:32 ------- (In reply to comment #2) > 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.
A peephole2 will do the trick . Constant pools in the ARM port are generated and placed as a part of the reorg pass. > > Is this also a size issue? Indeed - instead of 6 bytes (2 bytes for the ldr and 4 bytes for the .word which ends up in the .text section anyway.) instructions and you save a memory access. > -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40697
