ct: gcc
Version: 4.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P2
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: kevin at planetsaphire dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build t
--- Additional Comments From kevin at planetsaphire dot com 2005-08-28
20:18 ---
Created an attachment (id=9604)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9604&action=view)
Testcases and .i Files of uchar.*
This attatchment contains only the source files of my proj
--- Additional Comments From kevin at planetsaphire dot com 2005-08-28
20:26 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Are you compiling your source at -O0 or GCC at -O0? If the former, then this
is most likely not a bug.
-O2 does not do any optimization at all, and -O0 optimizes the code t
--- Additional Comments From kevin at planetsaphire dot com 2005-08-28
20:34 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> You are compiling at -O0 so this is not a bug and we don't care that much
about code generation at
> -O0.
So you're invalidating this bug because -O0 optimizes t
--- Additional Comments From kevin at planetsaphire dot com 2005-08-28
21:58 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> inlining memset is not an optimization as most OS's memsets are better than
the inlined version, using
> sse registers,etc.
I have finished reviewing over the g
--- Additional Comments From kevin at planetsaphire dot com 2005-08-29
00:16 ---
err... I meant "get rid of the pushpop instructions for ebx" because ebx
wouldn't be used (probably taken care of automatically anyway)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23605
--- Additional Comments From kevin at planetsaphire dot com 2005-08-29
00:36 ---
Also, is setting %eax to $0 once per memset good enough? I don't think the
"stos" instruction would reset %eax... the resulting assembly code in
tektester.386.s is the same
