https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60300
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60300
--- Comment #6 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Wed Nov 23 09:17:57 2016
New Revision: 242741
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242741&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/60300
* config/avr/constraints.md (Csp): W
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60300
--- Comment #5 from Matthijs Kooijman ---
Ah, then the comments are a bit misleading, yes. Wouldn't it make sense to put
this decision outside of avr_sp_immediate_operand, in the same area where the
decision between the two options is made? Might
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60300
Senthil Kumar Selvaraj changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||senthil_kumar.selvaraj@atme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60300
--- Comment #3 from Matthijs Kooijman ---
Hmm, I don't think the gcc sources support that. AFAICT, they attempt to just
find the shortest approach, without caring for speed. For example, look at
avr.c, around line 1265, where it says:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60300
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||avr
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann L
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60300
--- Comment #1 from Matthijs Kooijman ---
I noticed I didn't use -O in the output I pasted, but I just confirmed that the
results are the same with -Os and -O3.
