Tom,
>>> That also sounds reasonable. Is nm -S more portable than size?
>>
>> Neither Solaris nor IRIX nm have it. size isn't particularly portable,
>> either: there are many variations in output format.
[...]
> In case we ever need it, here's a patch to access nm -S.
sorry for the very late r
On 04/04/2011 02:22 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Richard Guenther writes:
>
>> On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Sergey Ostanevich
>> wrote:
>>> I would recommend to use 'nm -S a.out' that gives
>>>
>>> [...]
>>> 004004a4 0054 T main
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> then you can provide a name f
Richard Guenther writes:
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Sergey Ostanevich
> wrote:
>> I would recommend to use 'nm -S a.out' that gives
>>
>> [...]
>> 004004a4 0054 T main
>> [...]
>>
>> then you can provide a name for the routine you want to test for the size.
>
> That a
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Sergey Ostanevich wrote:
> I would recommend to use 'nm -S a.out' that gives
>
> [...]
> 004004a4 0054 T main
> [...]
>
> then you can provide a name for the routine you want to test for the size.
That also sounds reasonable. Is nm -S more port
On Apr 3, 2011, at 12:38 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>
>>> I wonder if we can add a code-size test harness. Using GNU size
>>> for examle, if available and a new dg-final { object-size SIZE } that
>>> fails when the size is greater than the
On 04/03/2011 09:38 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> On 04/02/2011 09:47 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 04/01/2011 05:18 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 1
On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 04/02/2011 09:47 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>> On 04/01/2011 05:18 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 16:45 +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
> Reposting, with C
On 04/02/2011 09:47 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> On 04/01/2011 05:18 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 16:45 +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
Reposting, with ChangeLog.
>>>
>>> #define BRANCH_COST(speed_p, predictable_
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 04/01/2011 05:18 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 16:45 +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>> Reposting, with ChangeLog.
>>
>> #define BRANCH_COST(speed_p, predictable_p) \
>> - (TARGET_32BIT ? 4 : (optimize > 0 ? 2 : 0))
>
On 04/01/2011 05:18 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 16:45 +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> Reposting, with ChangeLog.
>
> #define BRANCH_COST(speed_p, predictable_p) \
> - (TARGET_32BIT ? 4 : (optimize > 0 ? 2 : 0))
> + (TARGET_32BIT ? (TARGET_THUMB2 && optimize_size ? 1 : 4
On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 16:45 +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
> Reposting, with ChangeLog.
#define BRANCH_COST(speed_p, predictable_p) \
- (TARGET_32BIT ? 4 : (optimize > 0 ? 2 : 0))
+ (TARGET_32BIT ? (TARGET_THUMB2 && optimize_size ? 1 : 4) \
+ : (optimize > 0 ? 2 : 0))
Don't use opti
Reposting, with ChangeLog.
2011-04-01 Tom de Vries
PR target/43920
* config/arm/arm.h (BRANCH_COST): Set to 1 for Thumb-2 when optimizing
for size.
Index: gcc/config/arm/arm.h
===
--- gcc/config/arm/arm.h (revision 293961)
+++
arm-size-branch_cost.patch reduces BRANCH_COST for thumb2 -Os to 1. The
lower branch cost makes expand choose branches to expand code like '(a
== b || c == d)'.
The impact of arm-size-branch_cost.patch on the example from the bug
report for ARM Thumb-2 -Os is a size reduction of 15%, from 68 to 58
13 matches
Mail list logo
