On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 07:40:59AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 05/20/2010 07:04 AM, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > >> Do you have tried to compare the generated code before and after your > >> patch? I expect a few cases where your patch has some drawbacks, so I > >> don't know if there is a net gain on the size of the translated code. > >> > > > > I have done a quick test on /bin/ls. > > | instr | size | > > +--------+--------+ > > before | 101305 | 344770 | > > after | 101258 | 344829 | > > > > In short a small gain in the number of instructions, and a small loss in > > the size of the translated code. > > That was pretty much the test I would have done. > > So where are we? Is the patch acceptable as-is, or should I be > re-writing it without the constraints change? >
Given the tests do not show a real improvement and given that it complexify the code generation, I don't think we should have such a patch. Could you please rewrite it without the constraints change? -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net
