MaskRay added a comment. In D152279#4612099 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D152279#4612099>, @craig.topper wrote:
> In D152279#4612087 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D152279#4612087>, @MaskRay wrote: > >> I am still interested in moving this forward. What should be done here? If >> the decision is to keep the current odd default 8 for >> `toolchains::RISCVToolChain`, I guess I'll have to take the compromise as >> making a step forward is better than nothing. > > On 1 RV64 CPU I tried in our RTL simulator, changing from 8 to 0 reduced > dhrystone score by 2.7%. Using 16, or 32 gave the same score as 8. Reducing 8 > to 4 improved the score by 0.5%. Thank you for sharing the benchmarks! My view is that global pointer relaxation is an expert option that the user needs to tune (like that ld.lld doesn't default to `--relax-gp`). People can create more articles about global pointer relaxation usage, and make the default out of the business of the driver. If anyone tells me sdata/srodata/sbss adoption for other languages' compiler drivers, I'll definitely tell them not to copy the 0/8 complex rules in clang driver:) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D152279/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D152279 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
