On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Tom de Vries <vr...@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On 04/02/2011 09:47 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Tom de Vries <vr...@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>>> On 04/01/2011 05:18 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 16:45 +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>>>> Reposting, with ChangeLog.
>>>>
>>>> #define BRANCH_COST(speed_p, predictable_p) \
>>>> - (TARGET_32BIT ? 4 : (optimize > 0 ? 2 : 0))
>>>> + (TARGET_32BIT ? (TARGET_THUMB2 && optimize_size ? 1 : 4) \
>>>> + : (optimize > 0 ? 2 : 0))
>>>>
>>>> Don't use optimize_size here, use !speed_p.
>>>>
>>>> Otherwise OK.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Replaced optimize_size by !speed_p.
>>
>> I wonder if we can add a code-size test harness. Using GNU size
>> for examle, if available and a new dg-final { object-size SIZE } that
>> fails when the size is greater than the specified one (of course all
>> object-size tests with specific target restrictions).
>
> like this?
Yes!
I'm not sure finding the size binary is ok, and maybe we need to
verify that size output actually matches our expectation. Other
than that it's exactly what I meant.
Mike? Rainer?
Thanks,
Richard.
> Thanks,
> - Tom
>
