------- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2004-11-11 04:59 ------- Subject: Re: 3.4.3 ~6x+ performance regression vs 3.3.1, constant trees not being computed.
> From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > ------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11 > 04:41 ------- > Actually what you said is not true for this testcase as you have int & long > and not int & int. Sorry, I don't understand, it's fairly apparent to me, and apparently 3.3, and 3.4 (once it's actually does compute (1L << 23) in an earlier sub-expression), that: <16-bits-wide-variable> = (<16-bit-wide variable> & 0x01000000) = 0 ??? > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18424 > > ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- > You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18424
