On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 8:11 AM, Richard Guenther
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 7:42 PM, Jim Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Pranav Bhandarkar wrote:
> > >
> > > > GCC 4.3 do
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 8:11 AM, Richard Guenther
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 7:42 PM, Jim Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Pranav Bhandarkar wrote:
> >
> > > GCC 4.3 does fine here except when the operator is "logical and" (see
> > > attached. test.c uses logical an
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 7:42 PM, Jim Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pranav Bhandarkar wrote:
>
> > GCC 4.3 does fine here except when the operator is "logical and" (see
> > attached. test.c uses logical and and test1.c uses plus)
> >
>
> Logical and generates control-flow instructions, i.e. co
Pranav Bhandarkar wrote:
GCC 4.3 does fine here except when the operator is "logical and" (see
attached. test.c uses logical and and test1.c uses plus)
Logical and generates control-flow instructions, i.e. compares,
branches, and labels. This makes optimizing it a very different problem
than
Hi,
I have a case where the code looks roughly like
foo = i1 i2;
if (test1) bar1 = i1 i2;
if (test2) bar2 = i1 i2;
This can get converted into
reg = i1 i2
foo = reg
if (test1) bar1 = reg
if (test2) bar2 = reg
GCC 4.3 does fine here except when the operator is "logical and" (see
attached. tes
