> On Aug 24, 2020, at 3:20 PM, Segher Boessenkool <seg...@kernel.crashing.org>
> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 01:02:03PM -0500, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>> On Aug 24, 2020, at 12:49 PM, Segher Boessenkool
>>> <seg...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 06:27:45PM -0500, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 19, 2020, at 5:57 PM, Segher Boessenkool
>>>>> <seg...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
>>>>> Numbers on how expensive this is (for what arch, in code size and in
>>>>> execution time) would be useful. If it is so expensive that no one will
>>>>> use it, it helps security at most none at all :-(
>>>
>>> Without numbers on this, no one can determine if it is a good tradeoff
>>> for them. And we (the GCC people) cannot know if it will be useful for
>>> enough users that it will be worth the effort for us. Which is why I
>>> keep hammering on this point.
>> I can collect some run-time overhead data on this, do you have a
>> recommendation on what test suite I can use
>> For this testing? (Is CPU2017 good enough)?
>
> I would use something more real-life, not 12 small pieces of code.
There is some basic information about the benchmarks of CPU2017 in below link:
https://www.spec.org/cpu2017/Docs/overview.html#suites
<https://www.spec.org/cpu2017/Docs/overview.html#suites>
GCC itself is one of the benchmarks in CPU2017 (502.gcc_r). And 526.blender_r
is even larger than 502.gcc_r.
And there are several other quite big benchmarks as well (perlbench, xalancbmk,
parest, imagick, etc).
thanks.
Qing
