------- Comment #27 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-13 19:08 ------- If inserting the padding isn't worth it for say core2, m_CORE2 could be dropped from X86_TUNE_FOUR_JUMP_LIMIT, but certainly it would be interesting to see SPEC numbers backing that up. Similarly for AMD CPUs, and if on at least one of these it is beneficial, probably m_GENERIC should keep it, though with far improved min_insn_size so that it doesn't trigger unnecessarily so often.
Vlad/Honza, could one of you SPEC test say current 4.4 with one (or both of): http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-05/msg00702.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-05/msg00703.html on top of it (no need to compare clearly unneeded paddings to no paddings, better compare only somewhat needed paddings against no paddings) compared with X86_TUNE_FOUR_JUMP_LIMIT cleared for the used CPU? -- jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |vmakarov at gcc dot gnu dot | |org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39942
