On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 01:55:41PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote: > On Jan 26, 2016, at 1:26 PM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > > will do cc1plus size comparison afterwards. > > We know the dynamic check is larger. You can’t tell the advantage of > speed from size. Better would be to time compiling any random large > translation unit. > > Nice to see that only 14 calls remain, that’s way better than the 34 I > thought.
So, it seems probably the PR65656 changes made things actually significantly worse, while I see a (small) difference in the generated code between the two patches if I compile say tree-ssa-ccp.c with g++ 5.x, in the bootstrapped compiler there is no difference at all, the compilers with either patch have identical objdump -dr cc1plus. Already at *.gimple time all the relevant __builtin_constant_p are resolved and it seems all to 0. So please agree on one of the two patches (don't care which), and I'll try to distill a testcase to look at for PR65656. Jakub