https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
--- Comment #15 from Fredrik Hederstierna
---
Created attachment 38185
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38185&action=edit
tok.c
I took another example for CSiBE and stripped it down. I'm not 100% sure it is
the exact same is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
--- Comment #14 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #13)
> The change to the assignment of p_22 is made by forwprop1.
>
> It does create a situation where p_2 is live outside the loop and hides the
> CSE opp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
--- Comment #13 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
The change to the assignment of p_22 is made by forwprop1.
It does create a situation where p_2 is live outside the loop and hides the CSE
opportunity, which may be the cause of the more significant differ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
--- Comment #12 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
However, diff of cfgexand is significantly different:
;; Full RTL generated for this function:
;;
32: NOTE_INSN_DELETED
- 38: NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK 2
+ 39: NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK 2
33:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
--- Comment #11 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Optimized gimple diff between 5.3 and trunk is :
-;; Function inttostr (inttostr, funcdef_no=0, decl_uid=5268, cgraph_uid=0,
symbol_order=0)
+;; Function inttostr (inttostr, funcdef_no=0, decl_uid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
--- Comment #10 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I am looking into it. -mcpu=arm966e-s does not uses the
TARGET_NEW_GENERIC_COSTS. i.e, the rtx costs setup by the back-end might not be
optimal.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> CCing authors of the other commits. That said, complaining about size
> regressions generally should be only if it (significantly) increases sizes
> of some
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
All I wanted to say is that it is to be expected that on some code a newer GCC
version ends up needing one or two more instructions, even at -Os, and what
matters is not the size of a single function, but lar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I would suggest that you definitely keep reporting these things and extracting
examples from csibe or other benchmarks to show the codesize increases.
While some folks will prioritize performance, it doesn'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
--- Comment #6 from Fredrik Hederstierna
---
Thanks for your analysis on this. One comment on this 'complaint', it's not
only about size - in my example the compiler uses 2 more regs push and pop, and
several more instructions, so I think causin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|arm-none-eabi |arm-none-eabi,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> My #1 bet would be FSM threading.
I doubt it as if I read the asm differences correctly, GCC 6 just no longer
does store with post increment and that causes reg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
CC|
16 matches
Mail list logo
