On 29 Aug 2012, at 01:21, asharif at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54398
>
> Bug #: 54398
> Summary: Incorrect ARM assembly when building with
>-fno-omit-frame-pointer -O2
>Classification: Unclassified
>
On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 16:33 +, stephen.clarke at st dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43129
>
> Stephen Clarke changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
>
On Mon, 2010-04-12 at 09:34 +, siarhei dot siamashka at gmail dot
com wrote:
>
> --- Comment #8 from siarhei dot siamashka at gmail dot com 2010-04-12
> 09:34 ---
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > Patch submitted here.
> >
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-04/msg00401.html
>
> Unfortunately in thumb mode, loading a signed byte costs more than loading an
> unsigned byte and comparing with 0 has same cost as comparing with 0x7F.
I don't know of any core where loading a signed byte is more expensive
than unsigned byte in thumb mode. What did you have in mind ?
I suspec
