https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117795
--- Comment #3 from Matthieu CASTET ---
Created attachment 59715
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59715&action=edit
result without stack limit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117795
--- Comment #2 from Matthieu CASTET ---
Created attachment 59714
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59714&action=edit
result with -fstack-limit-symbol=mct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117795
--- Comment #1 from Matthieu CASTET ---
Created attachment 59713
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59713&action=edit
result with -fstack-limit-register=r10
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: castet.matthieu at free dot fr
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 59712
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59712&action=edit
test case
Hi,
building the attach program with -fstack-limit-register or
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48812
--- Comment #2 from Matthieu CASTET 2011-04-29
19:18:43 UTC ---
> We also have to make sure the shift count does not get negative, which
we can't in this case. Thus (1U<<(b-2)) is not equivalent to
(1U<> (b-2))
But I agree it is not trivial opt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48812
Summary: optimizing integer power of 2
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
