Hi Mike,
Thanks for the comments!
on 2023/1/18 04:57, Michael Meissner wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 05:39:04PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Now we will check optimize_function_for_speed_p (cfun) for
>> TARGET_SAVE_TOC_INDIRECT if it's implicitly enabled. But
>> the effect of -msave-t
On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 03:57:24PM -0500, Michael Meissner wrote:
> So I have objection to the change. I suspect it may be better with a check
> for
> just optimize either for speed or size, and not for speed.
Sigh. I meant I have NO objection to the change. Sorry about that.
--
Michael Meis
On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 05:39:04PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Now we will check optimize_function_for_speed_p (cfun) for
> TARGET_SAVE_TOC_INDIRECT if it's implicitly enabled. But
> the effect of -msave-toc-indirect is actually to save the
> TOC in the prologue for indirect calls rather th
Hi,
Now we will check optimize_function_for_speed_p (cfun) for
TARGET_SAVE_TOC_INDIRECT if it's implicitly enabled. But
the effect of -msave-toc-indirect is actually to save the
TOC in the prologue for indirect calls rather than inline,
it's also good for optimize_function_for_size? So this
patc
