Andrew Stubbs wrote: > On 06/09/10 07:16, Yao Qi wrote: >> I've put some ideas in this wiki page, >> https://wiki.linaro.org/Internal/People/YaoQi/Thumb2Optimize > > We probably shouldn't post Internal links to this public list. Is there > any reason this can't be done in the open? I've moved this page to a public place https://wiki.linaro.org/YaoQi/Sandbox/Thumb2SizeOptimize
> Now for the page content .... > > I think you should make clear that we're after _size_ optimizations in > this case, if just for readability's sake. > > 1. This example (regardless of correctness) gains no size improvement. > OK, I should remove this one. > 2. This code is clearly an inlined memset. It might be that a branch > instruction with constants and such is not (much) smaller. We should > investigate what GCC does for different size writes. > Yeah, I agree that we should investigate how gcc does for different size. > 3. This sounds like a nightmare for register allocation, but if you > could make it happen then great :) > > .... > > 6. Is that an EEMBC function? We can't change those in the source. Are > you proposing a -fwhole-program optimization? (Of course, enabling > inlining at -Os for trivial functions like this might work without > -fwhole-program or LTO, if it's in the same TU.) > Yes, that is an EEMBC function. Of course, we can't change source code. It is not related to thumb2 code size optimization. I've moved it to another section. > Other ideas: > > * https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc-linaro/+bug/625233 Add it in this wiki page. > * Investigate reduced alignment constraints? Any details on this? _______________________________________________ linaro-toolchain mailing list linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
