I took a closer look at some of the worst offenders, and in fact,
when I use the old code generator, the difference in sizes is not all
that great. So I suspect that I (or someone else) introduced
an unrelated regression in the backend. I'll have some better stats
soon...
Edward
Excerpts from E
On 07/04/2011 16:37, Edward Z. Yang wrote:
I've been working on new optimization passes for Hoopl to get
the code back to the quality of the old code generator.
With the new optimization pass, the binaries in the test suite
are, on average, 7% larger than the old code generator.
Here are the wor
I've been working on new optimization passes for Hoopl to get
the code back to the quality of the old code generator.
With the new optimization pass, the binaries in the test suite
are, on average, 7% larger than the old code generator.
Here are the worst offenders, with T3294 clocking in with a w
