On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Sergey Ostanevich <sergos....@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would recommend to use 'nm -S a.out' that gives
>
> [...]
> 00000000004004a4 0000000000000054 T main
> [...]
>
> then you can provide a name for the routine you want to test for the size.
That also sounds reasonable. Is nm -S more portable than size?
Richard.
> Regards,
> Sergos
>
>
>
> 2011/4/3 Tom de Vries <vr...@codesourcery.com>
>>
>> On 04/03/2011 09:38 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> > 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,
>>
>> Me neither. I just copied what I saw done for c++filt in
>> scan-assembler-dem-not, and found that it works for me.
>>
>> > and maybe we need to
>> > verify that size output actually matches our expectation.
>>
>> Changes since previous post:
>> - split output of size into lines
>> - check format of first and second line
>> - replaced 'switch $what' with 'lsearch $what'
>>
>> > Other than that it's exactly what I meant.
>> >
>>
>> Great.
>>
>> > Mike? Rainer?
>> >
>>
>> Thanks,
>> - Tom
>
>
