https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90340
--- Comment #13 from Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Fredrik Hederstierna from comment #9) > 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.. Thank you very much for the numbers! Apparently, changing 3->2 does not help as much as I hoped. Anyway, I'll prepare params for it.
