On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 3:34 AM, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
> Adding x86 maintainer, ping?
>
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 05:53:41AM -0700, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> For x86, STC still gives better results for optimise-for-size than
>> "simple" does. So use STC at -Os as well.
>>
>> Is this okay fo
Adding x86 maintainer, ping?
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 05:53:41AM -0700, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> For x86, STC still gives better results for optimise-for-size than
> "simple" does. So use STC at -Os as well.
>
> Is this okay for trunk?
>
>
> Segher
>
>
> 2015-10-16 Segher Boessenkool
>
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 02:55:54PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 10/16/2015 02:53 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >For x86, STC still gives better results for optimise-for-size than
> >"simple" does. So use STC at -Os as well.
>
> For how many targets is this true, and for the others, what is
On 10/16/2015 02:53 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
For x86, STC still gives better results for optimise-for-size than
"simple" does. So use STC at -Os as well.
For how many targets is this true, and for the others, what is the
biggest win from "simple"? If the list of targets which get patches
For x86, STC still gives better results for optimise-for-size than
"simple" does. So use STC at -Os as well.
Is this okay for trunk?
Segher
2015-10-16 Segher Boessenkool
PR rtl-optimization/67864
* common/config/i386/i386-common.c (ix86_option_optimization_table)
:
