https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90340
--- Comment #9 from Fredrik Hederstierna <fredrik.hederstie...@securitas-direct.com> --- I did the test suggested, the results was as follows A. gcc-8.2.0 B. gcc-9.1.0 C. gcc-9.1.0 -fno-jump-tables D. gcc-9.1.0 patched "max_ratio_for_size = 2" Overall CSiBE was A: 2 413 510 bytes B: 2 417 915 bytes (+4405 bytes, +0.18%) C: 2 423 413 bytes (+9903 bytes, +0.41%) D: 2 417 739 bytes (+4229 bytes, +0.18%) Example file CSiBE "vsprintf.c" was A: 2369 bytes B: 2589 bytes (+220 bytes, +9.3%) C: 2445 bytes ( +76 bytes, +3.2%) D: 2489 bytes (+120 bytes, +5.1%) So it didn't really solve it, but made it better possibly, though there are othre code size regression aswell for gcc-9.1.0 which might also affect results..