https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109463
--- Comment #3 from elronnd at elronnd dot net ---
Yes, I think the gcc approach of branching is definitely better. But it's
still a good idea to optimise for size in the cold path.
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: elronnd at elronnd dot net
Target Milestone: ---
double f(uint64_t x) { return x; } gives:
test rdi,rdi
js 10
pxor xmm0,xmm0
cvtsi2sd xmm0,rdi
ret
nop
10:
movrax,rdi
and
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: elronnd at elronnd dot net
Target Milestone: ---
$ cat q.c
int f() {
struct { int m; } **x;
return x->m;
}
$ gcc -c q.c
q.c: In function âfâ:
q.c:3:17: error: â*xâ i
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: elronnd at elronnd dot net
Target Milestone: ---
The following code
extern void fun(char);
void wrapper(char x) { fun(x); }
Should compile 'wrapper' to a single
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: elronnd at elronnd dot net
Target Milestone: ---
POC:
typedef struct{int _;} A;
typedef struct{int _;} B;
typedef union {
A a;
B b;
} O;
#define NO(o) _Generic((o
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: d
Assignee: ibuclaw at gdcproject dot org
Reporter: elronnd at elronnd dot net
Target Milestone: ---
Basic POC:
void asm_test(int x)() {
asm
