https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59535
--- Comment #19 from ramana.radhakrishnan at arm dot com <ramana.radhakrishnan at arm dot com> --- On 06/12/14 08:46, fredrik.hederstie...@securitas-direct.com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59535 > > Fredrik Hederstierna <fredrik.hederstie...@securitas-direct.com> changed: > > What |Removed |Added > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > CC| |fredrik.hederstierna@securi > | |tas-direct.com > > --- Comment #18 from Fredrik Hederstierna > <fredrik.hederstie...@securitas-direct.com> --- > I compared GCC 4.8.3 and GCC 4.9.0 for arm-none-eabi, and I still see a code > size increase for thumb1 (and thumb2) for both my arm966e and my cortex-m4 > targets. > > GCC 4.8.3 > RAM used 93812 > Flash used 515968 > > GCC 4.9.0 > RAM used 93812 (same) > Flash used 522608 (+1.3%) > > Then I tried to disable LRA and results got better: > > GCC 4.9.0 : added flag "-mno-lra" > RAM used 93812 (same) > Flash used 519624 (+0.7%) > > Flags used are otherwise identical for both tests: > > -Os -g3 -ggdb3 -gdwarf-4 > -fvar-tracking-assignments -fverbose-asm -fno-common -ffunction-sections > -fdata-sections -fno-exceptions -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables > -fno-unwind-tables > -mthumb -mcpu=arm966e-s -msoft-float -mno-unaligned-access > > Generally GCC 4.9.0 seems to produce larger code, I tried to experiement with > LTO (-flto -flto-fat-objects), but then code size increased even more for both > GCC 4.8.3 and GCC 4.9.0, I was expecting a code decrease though. > > Sorry I cannot share exact sources used for compilation here, I can share > toolchain build script though on request, or try to setup a small test case. > > I first just wanted to confirm that this bug really is fixed and resolved, so > its not a new bug or another known issue. It might be another issue or it may well be an issue with LRA not many could tell for certain unless we could get a small testcase to look at. What we'd like is a small testcase that shows the problem compared with gcc 4.8.3 to progress this further. Please file a new bug report following the instructions in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/#report in this particular case we'd be interested in all command line options that were used. regards Ramana > > BR /Fredrik >
