[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance
From: |
Weddington, Eric |
Subject: |
RE: [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance |
Date: |
Sat, 28 Feb 2009 08:25:40 -0700 |
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> address@hidden
> [mailto:address@hidden
> org] On Behalf Of Nicholas Vinen
> Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 6:21 AM
> To: address@hidden
> Cc: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance
>
>
> Now that I've signed up to this list, if and when I come
> across avr-gcc missing obvious optimisations I'll report them.
>
We certainly appreciate bug reports. However, before you report them, please
make sure that they haven't been reported already. An AVR toolchain bug list is
kept here:
<http://www.nongnu.org/avr-libc/bugs.html>
There are already a number of missed optimization gcc bugs reported on that
list. Some have even been fixed already, though they haven't been released
through a toolchain distribution.
- [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance, Nicholas Vinen, 2009/02/28
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance, Parthasaradhi Nayani, 2009/02/28
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance, Georg-Johann Lay, 2009/02/28
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance, Nicholas Vinen, 2009/02/28
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance, Nicholas Vinen, 2009/02/28
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance, Georg-Johann Lay, 2009/02/28
- RE: [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance, Weddington, Eric, 2009/02/28
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance, Georg-Johann Lay, 2009/02/28
- RE: [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance, Weddington, Eric, 2009/02/28
- [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance, David Brown, 2009/02/28
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance, Georg-Johann Lay, 2009/02/28
- [avr-gcc-list] Re: C vs. assembly performance, David Brown, 2009/02/28