47
To: Roger Sayle
Cc: GCC Patches
Subject: Re: [x86_64 PATCH] Tweak -Os costs for scalar-to-vector pass.
On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 9:55 PM Roger Sayle wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> Benchmarking this patch using CSiBE on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu with -Os -m32
> saves 2432 bytes.
> Of the 893
the missing 'else'.
Thanks,
Richard.
> Thanks in advance,
> Roger
> --
>
> -----Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener
> Sent: 20 August 2021 08:29
> To: Roger Sayle
> Cc: GCC Patches
> Subject: Re: [x86_64 PATCH] Tweak -Os costs for scalar-to-vector p
t -m32,
ok for mainline?
Thanks in advance,
Roger
--
-Original Message-
From: Richard Biener
Sent: 20 August 2021 08:29
To: Roger Sayle
Cc: GCC Patches
Subject: Re: [x86_64 PATCH] Tweak -Os costs for scalar-to-vector pass.
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 6:01 PM Roger Sayle wrote:
>
ight, that I need to run CSiBE with -m32 and get back
to you with the results.
Roger
--
-Original Message-
From: Richard Biener
Sent: 20 August 2021 08:29
To: Roger Sayle
Cc: GCC Patches
Subject: Re: [x86_64 PATCH] Tweak -Os costs for scalar-to-vector pass.
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 6:01 PM Roger Sayle wrote:
>
>
> Doh! ENOPATCH.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Roger Sayle
> Sent: 19 August 2021 16:59
> To: 'GCC Patches'
> Subject: [x86_64 PATCH] Tweak -Os costs for scalar-to-vector pass.
>
>
>
Doh! ENOPATCH.
-Original Message-
From: Roger Sayle
Sent: 19 August 2021 16:59
To: 'GCC Patches'
Subject: [x86_64 PATCH] Tweak -Os costs for scalar-to-vector pass.
Back in June I briefly mentioned in one of my gcc-patches posts that a
change that should have always re
Back in June I briefly mentioned in one of my gcc-patches posts that
a change that should have always reduced code size, would mysteriously
occasionally result in slightly larger code (according to CSiBE):
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-June/573233.html
Investigating further, the
