------- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2004-11-11 17:19 ------- Subject: Re: 3.4.3 ~6x+ performance regression vs 3.3.1, constant trees not being computed.
> From: joseph at codesourcery dot com <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ------- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2004-11-11 > 16:22 ------- > Subject: Re: 3.4.3 ~6x+ performance regression vs > 3.3.1, constant trees not being computed. > > Have you actually tried compiling code identical to that you test but with > 8388608L in place of (1L << 23) before making claims about what is done > with constant expressions? > > Your example may suggest a regression, provided no type sizes changed for > your target between the versions compared, but you really shouldn't report > conjectures about the cause of a bug without clear evidence to > substantiate them, which in this case would involve substituting the value > of the constant expression in the testcase. Good point, will do with both 0x800000L and (1 << 23). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18424
