On 18 September 2014 23:46, Ian Grant wrote: > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Tobias Ulmer <tobi...@tmux.org> wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 01:26:48PM -0400, Ian Grant wrote: >>> I can compile the first stage OK, and the binaries are quite modest: >>> >>> -rwxr-xr-x 1 ian ian 17.2M Sep 6 03:47 prev-gcc/cc1 >>> -rwxr-xr-x 1 ian ian 1.2M Sep 6 04:24 prev-gcc/cpp >>> -rwxr-xr-x 1 ian ian 1.2M Sep 6 04:24 prev-gcc/xgcc >> >> Gcc 4.9 binaries on OpenBSD/amd64 are resonable: >> >> -r-xr-xr-x 1 root bin 11.6M Sep 9 03:02 cc1 >> -r-xr-xr-x 1 root bin 15.4M Sep 9 03:02 gnat1 >> -r-xr-xr-x 1 root bin 749K Sep 9 03:02 ecpp > > I think we need to be able to explain this. It's an increase of over > 60%, I wouldn't expect that to be due to the relative ineffiiciency of > Intel instruction encoding over AMD. And it is not due to the > inclusion of libsylkrts (it's much easier to say "Intel library", how > many other libraries are there in GCC that were written by Intel?)
liboffload might get added soon. > because that is not in the stage1 bootstrap. Are you looking at stripped binaries or unstripped? Have you compared the binaries using size(1) instead of ls(1)?
