> > Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> My feeling is that -funroll-loops is almost always an improvement. It > might > >> be false sometimes, but this can be said of many optimization passes. > > > > Can you back up this feeling with numbers? SPEC -O2 > vs. -O2 -funroll-loops > > and/or -O3 vs. -O3 -funroll-loops would do it. > > > I don't have access to SPEC, sorry. I believe you do, though?
The last time this was proposed, -funroll-loops caused a couple of wrong-code in SPEC but nobody had the time to look into them. Note I proposed it and I don't think it is correct at this late stage into 4.1's release and it is not a bug fix either. -- Pinski
