A question about bytecodes + unsigned load performance ./. add performace

[Christian Thalinger]

On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 13:52 -0800, Tom Rodriguez wrote:
> The ideal for the simple example is something like (StoreC mem2 addr2  
> (AndI (LoadB mem1 addr1) (ConI 0xff))).  The code above will break the  
> match at the load, forcing the value into a register.  It's seem like  
> an excessively strong cutout but I'm not sure how to phrase it better,  
> particularly since I don't know what exactly what problem it designed  
> to eliminate.  I believe it's probably the anti-dep issue but without  
> a concrete failure it's hard to know what exactly it should look like.

Is it possible to track down the change in your TeamWare repositories?
Maybe there is some comment or bug# in the commit message.

-- Christian