[Bug target/111500] [arm-none-eabi-gcc] / suboptimal optimization / subs followed by cmp (et alii)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111500 Luke changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/104773] compare with 1 not merged with subtract 1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104773 Luke changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cptarse-luke at yahoo dot com --- Comment #3 fro

[Bug target/111500] [arm-none-eabi-gcc] / suboptimal optimization / subs followed by cmp (et alii)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111500 --- Comment #7 from Luke --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6) > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5) > > This is most likely a dup of bug 104773. > > Or of bug 3507. i concur... but i do not know which one to choose... they b

[Bug target/111500] [arm-none-eabi-gcc] / suboptimal optimization / subs followed by cmp (et alii)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111500 Bug 111500 depends on bug 111581, which changed state. Bug 111581 Summary: [arm-none-eabi-gcc] / suboptimal optimization / uxth/sxth https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111581 What|Removed |Added -

[Bug rtl-optimization/60749] combine is overly cautious when operating on volatile memory references

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60749 Luke changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cptarse-luke at yahoo dot com --- Comment #3 from

[Bug target/111581] [arm-none-eabi-gcc] / suboptimal optimization / uxth/sxth

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111581 Luke changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/111581] [arm-none-eabi-gcc] / suboptimal optimization / uxth/sxth

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111581 --- Comment #1 from Luke --- in the unsigned case: furthermore the ldrh already cleared the high half-word, so that a uxth would be superfluous, even if there would be a subsequent str...

[Bug target/111582] New: [arm-none-eabi-gcc] / suboptimal optimization / bitfield / superfluous stack write

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111582 Bug ID: 111582 Summary: [arm-none-eabi-gcc] / suboptimal optimization / bitfield / superfluous stack write Product: gcc Version: 9.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Seve

[Bug target/111581] New: [arm-none-eabi-gcc] / suboptimal optimization /

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111581 Bug ID: 111581 Summary: [arm-none-eabi-gcc] / suboptimal optimization / Product: gcc Version: 9.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug target/111580] New: [arm-none-eabi-gcc] / suboptimal optimization / b.n to bx lr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111580 Bug ID: 111580 Summary: [arm-none-eabi-gcc] / suboptimal optimization / b.n to bx lr Product: gcc Version: 9.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/111500] [arm-none-eabi-gcc] / suboptimal optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111500 --- Comment #4 from Luke --- the a.i file for example #1a is: # 1 "a.c" # 1 "/tmp//" # 1 "" # 1 "" # 1 "a.c" void artiSUBS() { for (int i=100; i>0; i--) *(volatile int*)0xE000E014 = i; } the command-line was: > arm-none-eabi-gcc -save-temps

[Bug target/111500] [arm-none-eabi-gcc] / suboptimal optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111500 --- Comment #3 from Luke --- maybe i should also say the "-v" output? > arm-none-eabi-gcc -v Using built-in specs. COLLECT_GCC=arm-none-eabi-gcc COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/lib/gcc/arm-none-eabi/9.3.0/lto-wrapper Target: arm-none-eabi Configured wi