On 2014.09.27 at 07:59 +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
>
> > It seems that in this case we reject too many of equality candidates?
> > It think the original numbers was about 4-5% but later some equivalences was
> > disabled because of devirt/aliasing issues. Do you compare it with gold ICF
> > enabled? There are quite few obvious improvements to the analysis that can
> > be done, but I guess we need to analyze the interesting cases one by one.
Forgot to post the binary size numbers (in bytes):
| gold's icf off | gold's icf on |
--------------+----------------+----------------+
gcc's icf off | 79793880 | 74881040 |
--------------+---------------------------------+
gcc's icf on | 78043608 | 73612800 |
--------------+----------------+----------------+
--
Markus
