Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

Please take this up with the CSiBE people. This is highly off-topic here. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, [EMAIL PROTECTED] SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany PGP key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 "And now for something c

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 12:43 +0200, Joerg Wunsch wrote: > As Richard Earnshaw wrote: > > > > That's what I did, but it doesn't help for the non-standard usage > > > of /usr/bin/time (-f option). They even explicitly used > > > /usr/bin/time rather than bash's builtin. > > > No, it uses whichever

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

As Richard Earnshaw wrote: > > That's what I did, but it doesn't help for the non-standard usage > > of /usr/bin/time (-f option). They even explicitly used > > /usr/bin/time rather than bash's builtin. > No, it uses whichever time program you pass to the configure script > with the -S flag. So

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 09:07 +0200, Joerg Wunsch wrote: > As Richard Earnshaw wrote: > > > There's no need to hack everything up. As long as you have bash > > installed on your machine, it's straight-forward to run CSiBE on > > *BSD machines: simply invoke the makefiles with SHELL=.../bash. > > T

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

As Richard Earnshaw wrote: > There's no need to hack everything up. As long as you have bash > installed on your machine, it's straight-forward to run CSiBE on > *BSD machines: simply invoke the makefiles with SHELL=.../bash. That's what I did, but it doesn't help for the non-standard usage of /

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

> > I'd rather remove this "hack" and use the inliners code size estimator, like > that patch from early 2005 (attached)... Uh yes, I think it is way to go (and additionally making -O2 to autoinline small functions like -Os does). The patch would be OK if it still works ;) Even if CSiBE regress

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

Richard Earnshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > There's no need to hack everything up. As long as you have bash > installed on your machine, it's straight-forward to run CSiBE on *BSD > machines: simply invoke the makefiles with SHELL=.../bash. Or (pd)?ksh, for that matter. Andreas. -- Andreas

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 22:51 +0200, Joerg Wunsch wrote: > As Steven Bosscher wrote: > > > >The idea behind that tool is great, I only wish the authors had > > >taken a class in portable shell scripting before. It's not that > > >all the world's a Vax these days... > > > Patches welcome, I guess.

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

As René Rebe wrote: > > "find | sed -i" would take most of the pain out of that if you > > did want to try it... > sed "-i" is an "evil" GNU extension, likewise :-) No, it's similarly available on FreeBSD. That would be fine with me here, as it's only required to tweak the code, but would not

RE: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

On 28 April 2007 16:13, Andreas Schwab wrote: > René Rebe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> sed "-i" is an "evil" GNU extension, likewise :-) > > Also a FreeBSD extension. I wasn't proposing it be put *into* the source, I was suggesting it be used /on/ the source... cheers, DaveK --

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

René Rebe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > sed "-i" is an "evil" GNU extension, likewise :-) Also a FreeBSD extension. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, [EMAIL PROTECTED] SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany PGP key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 4

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

On Saturday 28 April 2007 13:50:01 Dave Korn wrote: > On 27 April 2007 21:51, Joerg Wunsch wrote: > > > As Steven Bosscher wrote: > > > >>> The idea behind that tool is great, I only wish the authors had > >>> taken a class in portable shell scripting before. It's not that > >>> all the world's

RE: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

On 27 April 2007 21:51, Joerg Wunsch wrote: > As Steven Bosscher wrote: > >>> The idea behind that tool is great, I only wish the authors had >>> taken a class in portable shell scripting before. It's not that >>> all the world's a Vax these days... > >> Patches welcome, I guess. > > Well, qui

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

As Steven Bosscher wrote: > >The idea behind that tool is great, I only wish the authors had > >taken a class in portable shell scripting before. It's not that > >all the world's a Vax these days... > Patches welcome, I guess. Well, quite an amount of work, alas. There's no central template in

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

On 4/27/07, Joerg Wunsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: As Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > What's that test suite that has been mentioned here, and how to > > run it? > http://www.inf.u-szeged.hu/csibe/ Thanks for the pointer. Got it. Alas, that tool is completely unportable, and requires Linux to r

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

As Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > What's that test suite that has been mentioned here, and how to > > run it? > http://www.inf.u-szeged.hu/csibe/ Thanks for the pointer. Got it. Alas, that tool is completely unportable, and requires Linux to run. It suffers from bashomania (like using $((I--)) w

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

On 4/25/07, Joerg Wunsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: As Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31528 > The relevant code is in opts.c: > if (optimize_size) > { > /* Inlining of very small functions usually reduces total size. */ > set_param_va

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

Joerg Wunsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What's that test suite that has been mentioned here, and how to run > it? http://www.inf.u-szeged.hu/csibe/ Ian

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

As Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31528 > The relevant code is in opts.c: > if (optimize_size) > { > /* Inlining of very small functions usually reduces total size. */ > set_param_value ("max-inline-insns-single", 5); > set_param_

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

Kenneth Hoste <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > A related question: how is decided which priority a bug gets? In general the release manager, Mark Mitchell, sets the priorities of bugs in the bug database. He follows general guidelines where wrong-code is more important, primary platforms are more i

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

On 17 Apr 2007, at 16:27, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: Kenneth Hoste <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: * When using -falign-loops or -fno-align-loops the corresponding internal variable 'align-loops' should be set to 0 (= use default setting) or 1 (= no aligning) resp. When parsing the various flags, a

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

On 4/18/07, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Perhaps the number of arguments should be taken into account as well. We've been doing that for years. Gr. Steven

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 12:16:32AM +0100, Dave Korn wrote: > Sorry for butting in, but I just can't follow the reasoning here. > Unless a function is only ever used once and is inlined at the single > callsite, or unless the prolog and epilog are several times the size of > the function body, isn

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 03:44:36PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > The relevant code is in opts.c: > > if (optimize_size) > { > /* Inlining of very small functions usually reduces total size. */ > set_param_value ("max-inline-insns-single", 5); > set_param_value ("max-inl

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

"Dave Korn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Sorry for butting in, but I just can't follow the reasoning here. Unless a > function is only ever used once and is inlined at the single callsite, or > unless the prolog and epilog are several times the size of the function body, > isn't inlining /alwa

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

On Apr 17, 2007, at 4:20 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: increase code size? I feel I must be missing something really obvious... is it just that the other optimisations that become possible on inline code usually compensate? That or the savings from not having to save/restore registers, s

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

increase code size? I feel I must be missing something really obvious... is it just that the other optimisations that become possible on inline code usually compensate? That or the savings from not having to save/restore registers, set up the frame, etc as well. -eric

RE: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

On 17 April 2007 23:27, Paul Brook wrote: >> No, the issue is that the -Os option is *documented* to *only* include >> those optimizations that are known to not increase the code size. > > Where exactly is the documented? My documentation says It > enables "optimisations that do not *typically* i

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

Joerg Wunsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > As Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > > If the code size increases for AVR, when using -Os, when comparing an > > older release to mainline or 4.2 branch, you should report that as a > > regression in bugzilla. Thanks. > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug

RE: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

> -Original Message- > From: Mike Stump [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 4:28 PM > To: Eric Weddington > Cc: 'Steven Bosscher'; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; 'Joerg Wunsch'; > 'Anatoly Sokolov' > Subject: Re: GCC -On opti

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

As Steven Bosscher wrote: > And now that you've shown that for this test case GCC actually may > have regressed on every target, you've shown that perhaps the global > inlining heuristics should be changed. May well be, for all I know. > Tuning heuristics is always hard and never provably optimal.

RE: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

> -Original Message- > From: Ian Lance Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 4:20 PM > To: Eric Weddington > Cc: 'Steven Bosscher'; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; 'Joerg Wunsch'; > 'Anatoly Sokolov' > Subject: Re: GCC -On

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

> No, the issue is that the -Os option is *documented* to *only* include > those optimizations that are known to not increase the code size. Where exactly is the documented? My documentation says It enables "optimisations that do not *typically* increase code size" (emphasis mine). Many optim

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

On Apr 17, 2007, at 2:56 PM, Eric Weddington wrote: Well this begs the question of why, when there are so many different targets, are there are only 4 optimization flags (1,2,3,s), especially when they only get tuned to certain targets? If you count again, you'll see there are more than 4 op

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

As Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > If the code size increases for AVR, when using -Os, when comparing an > older release to mainline or 4.2 branch, you should report that as a > regression in bugzilla. Thanks. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31528 -- cheers, J"org .-.-. -

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

On 4/18/07, Joerg Wunsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: As Eric Weddington wrote: > > > And it seems to have some issues: > > > Comments #4 > > > and #6. > > The only real issue here is a wrong expectation: That a certain > > combination of flags

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

As Steven Bosscher wrote: > Maybe you can look at the development of code size of AVR over time, > and show a different trend, but I'd be surprised. Most AVR users use -Os, as small code is fast code in most of the cases on the AVR. The `overall summary' is that GCC continuously decreased its ef

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

Eric Weddington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Also, as you mention the target code has a chance to tune this ..., can you > give me a hint about > where to look for these knobs? I might give it a try to see whether I > can find a more optimal set of parameters." > > This was in response to your

RE: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

> -Original Message- > From: Steven Bosscher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 2:52 PM > To: Eric Weddington > Cc: Kenneth Hoste; gcc@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues > > On 4/17/07, Eric Wedd

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

On 4/17/07, Eric Weddington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > when perhaps they should > also notice that the efficiency of GCC for -Os has increased > tremendously in the past few years... That is what you think is important. To AVR users, compile time could increase by 100% and they wouldn't care,

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

As Eric Weddington wrote: > > > And it seems to have some issues: > > > Comments #4 > > > and #6. > > The only real issue here is a wrong expectation: That a certain > > combination of flags magically does the best thing for every > > target. N

RE: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

> -Original Message- > From: Steven Bosscher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 2:52 PM > To: Eric Weddington > Cc: Kenneth Hoste; gcc@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues > > On 4/17/07, Eric Wedd

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

On 4/17/07, Eric Weddington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > - finline-functions is enabled at -Os, but isn't listed so And it seems to have some issues: Comments #4 and #6. The only real issue here is a wrong expectation: That a certain combinat

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

On 17 Apr 2007, at 18:18, Eric Weddington wrote: -Original Message- From: Kenneth Hoste [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 3:23 AM To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues - finline-functions is enabled at -Os, but isn't li

RE: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

> -Original Message- > From: Kenneth Hoste [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 3:23 AM > To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues > - finline-functions is enabled at -Os, but isn't listed so And it seems to have some issues:

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

Kenneth Hoste <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * When using -falign-loops or -fno-align-loops the corresponding > internal variable 'align-loops' should be set to 0 (= use default > setting) or 1 (= no aligning) resp. When parsing the various flags, a > variable 'value' is used to set (value=1) or un

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

On 4/17/07, Kenneth Hoste <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: * On x86, -fschedule-insns is disabled, but -fschedule-insns2 (or the corresponding internal flag flag_schedule_insns_after_reload) is still being used... The reason for disabling fschedule-insns is increased register pressure (and x86 has few