Bug#268115: gcc-3.4: could optimize FP multiplies better

Package: gcc-3.4 Version: 3.4.1-7.0.0.1.amd64 Severity: wishlist compiling this function: double baz(double foo, double bar) { return foo*foo*foo*foo*bar*bar*bar*bar; } on amd64 with -O6 -ffast-math, gcc emits this code: foo.o: file format elf64-x86-64 Disassembly of section .text: ..

Re: RFC: Adding minimal amd64/biarch support for sarge

hat some would call a "production" system). It would rock to have it in sarge :) -- #define X(x,y) x##y Peter Cordes ; e-mail: X([EMAIL PROTECTED] , des.ca) "The gods confound the man who first found out how to distinguish the hours! Confound him, too, who in this place set

Bug#242318: gcc-3.3: gcc could generate better code for if(!p) return NULL;return p;

Package: gcc-3.3 Version: 1:3.3.3-6 Severity: wishlist I saw some code that redundantly tests a malloc return for NULL, but returns it either way. I wondered whether gcc would notice the optimization. It turns out that it gets it right with -march=athlon, or pentium3, but wrong with i386 or i4