Hi, > On 11/09/2015 02:32 PM, Robert Suchanek wrote: > > The results below were generated for CSiBE benchmark and the numbers in > > columns express bytes in format 'net (gain/loss)' to show the difference > > with and without the patch when -frename-registers switch is used. > > I'm not entirely sure what the numbers represent. I can see how you'd > measure at a net size change (I assume a negative net is the intended > goal), but how did you arrive at gain/loss numbers? > > In any case, assuming negative is good, the results seem pretty decent.
The gain/loss was calculated based on per function analysis. Each flavour e.g. MIPS n64 -Os was ran with/without the patch and compared to the base i.e. without the patch. The patched version of each function may show either positive (larger code size), negative or no difference to the code size. The gain/loss in a cell is the sum of all positive/negative numbers for a test. The negatives, as you said, are the good ones. > > > + gcc_assert > > + (terminated_this_insn->regno == REGNO (recog_data.operand[1])); > > Maybe break the line before the == so that you can start the arguments > on the same line as the assert. > > > + /* Nonzero if the chain is renamed. */ > > + unsigned int renamed:1; > > I'd write "has already been renamed" since that is maybe slightly less > ambiguous. > > Ok with those changes. > > > Bernd Will do the changes and apply. Regards, Robert
