From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020606
Description of problem:
These two functions should generate much more similar assembly.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Steps to Reproduce:
1.Take the example file, testswitch.cxx
2.g++ -pipe -march=athlon -mcpu=athlon -O2 -S testswitch.cxx
3.Look at testswitch.s and see how assembly output for functions test and test2
are pretty different.
Additional info: gcc-c++-2.96-112
Created attachment 69226 [details]
Source file to compile to reproduce
Created attachment 69227 [details]
The assembly language output
This is certainly nothing which will change in 2.96-RH, as it is in
important bugfixes mode only.
If you get the same behaviour with gcc 3.3, file an enhancement request
Well, I would love to test it on gcc 3.3 or something similar, but those things
aren't available in a standard non-beta distribution yet. In fact AFAIK, gcc
3.3 isn't even released yet.
It seems odd to me that I should have to download and hand-build the unstable
CVS tree for a compiler simply so I can report a case of inadequate optimization.
Of course, the differences between 2.96 and 3.2 in the optimization department
are rather marked. So if you insist I try it in a 3.2 version when RH 8.0 comes
out, I'll do so.
Well, at least 3.1 is available for 7.3 as secondary compiler (there is
a special RHN channel for it), so you can check that. The point in filing
PR in gcc GNATS is that your enhancement request will get there greater