On Jan 17, 2008 3:48 PM, Sergei Poselenov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Andrew,
>
> I agree. Actually, the CSiBE results are impressive: I've built the
> bzip2 library for powerpc and got similar results.
>
> I wonder why GCC maintainers are ignoring the -Os regression for
> most of their case
Hello Andrew,
Andrew Haley wrote:
Sergei Poselenov writes:
> Hello Andrew,
>
> > Now, I sympathize that in your particular case you have a code size
> > regression. This happens: when we do optimization in gcc, some code
> > bases will lose out. All that we can promise is that we try no
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 05:48:10PM +0300, Sergei Poselenov wrote:
> Hello Andrew,
>
> Andrew Haley wrote:
> >Sergei Poselenov writes:
> > > Hello Andrew,
> > >
> > > > Now, I sympathize that in your particular case you have a code size
> > > > regression. This happens: when we do optimization in
Gabriel Paubert wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 05:48:10PM +0300, Sergei Poselenov wrote:
Hello Andrew,
Preprocessed and assembler code generated by the GCC 4.2.2 ppc-linux
cross-compiler:
http://www.emcraft.com/codesize/gcc-4.2.2/interrupts.i
http://www.emcraft.com/codesize/gcc-4.2.2/interrup
> Andrew Haley writes:
Andrew> I suspect that the real reason for the change in save/restore is because
Andrew> not using lmw/stmw is faster. That's just a guess though. gcc could
probably
Andrew> be fixed to use ldmw/stmw if -Os is used.
Andrew> Anyway, now we've found something specific
David Edelsohn wrote:
Andrew Haley writes:
Andrew> I suspect that the real reason for the change in save/restore is because
Andrew> not using lmw/stmw is faster. That's just a guess though. gcc could
probably
Andrew> be fixed to use ldmw/stmw if -Os is used.
Andrew> Anyway, now we've found
> Andrew Haley writes:
Andrew> Err, why not?
Because the fixed register means it no longer is a continuous
sequence of registers. And the PowerPC port does not break it up into two
sequences. And fixed registers in that range are not part of any standard
ABI.
David
