[Bug middle-end/24929] long long shift/mask operations should be better optimized

2005-11-17 Thread tkho at ucla dot edu
--- Comment #1 from tkho at ucla dot edu 2005-11-18 02:35 --- Created an attachment (id=10273) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10273&action=view) shift/mask long long testcase Here is a rough instruction-count comparison for f() compiled at -O2, march=pen

[Bug middle-end/24929] New: long long shift/mask operations should be better optimized

2005-11-17 Thread tkho at ucla dot edu
optimized Product: gcc Version: 4.0.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Component: middle-end AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: tkho at ucla dot edu GCC host triplet: i

[Bug middle-end/17886] variable rotate and long long rotate should be better optimized

2005-11-10 Thread tkho at ucla dot edu
--- Comment #24 from tkho at ucla dot edu 2005-11-11 01:26 --- For comparison, here's the code from gcc 2.95.3. It generates the same 18 instructions for both march=i386 and march=pentiumpro. `gcc -c test3.c -save-temps -O2 -momit-leaf-frame-pointer -march=pentiumpro`:

[Bug middle-end/17886] variable rotate and long long rotate should be better optimized

2005-11-10 Thread tkho at ucla dot edu
--- Comment #23 from tkho at ucla dot edu 2005-11-10 22:43 --- Created an attachment (id=10211) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10211&action=view) Another long long rotate test case Hi Michael, I tried your patch in comment #16, and it didn't optim

[Bug libstdc++/23358] _Destroy doesn't optimize for scalar types

2005-08-22 Thread tkho at ucla dot edu
--- Additional Comments From tkho at ucla dot edu 2005-08-22 20:38 --- I want to note that a benchmark built with -funsafe-loop-optimizations turns up being slower AFTER fixing the typo (and enabling the specialization), so the specialization code should definitely be removed as soon as

[Bug libstdc++/23425] vector::clear should be manually inlined

2005-08-16 Thread tkho at ucla dot edu
--- Additional Comments From tkho at ucla dot edu 2005-08-16 18:25 --- Created an attachment (id=9503) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9503&action=view) change to vector::clear -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23425

[Bug libstdc++/23425] New: vector::clear should be manually inlined

2005-08-16 Thread tkho at ucla dot edu
Summary: vector::clear should be manually inlined Product: gcc Version: 4.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: libstdc++ AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: tkho at ucla d

[Bug tree-optimization/23414] function call not optimized away after unsafe-loop-optimizations

2005-08-15 Thread tkho at ucla dot edu
--- Additional Comments From tkho at ucla dot edu 2005-08-16 01:11 --- Why is it that the call to b() is completely optimized away while the call to a() still exists? -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/23414] function call not optimized away after unsafe-loop-optimizations

2005-08-15 Thread tkho at ucla dot edu
--- Additional Comments From tkho at ucla dot edu 2005-08-16 00:59 --- Created an attachment (id=9501) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9501&action=view) testcase gcc -O2 -save-temps -funsafe-loop-optimizations loop.c -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug

[Bug tree-optimization/23414] New: function call not optimized away after unsafe-loop-optimizations

2005-08-15 Thread tkho at ucla dot edu
onent: tree-optimization AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: tkho at ucla dot edu CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org GCC host triplet: i686-unknown-linux-gnu http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23414