Re: ACCUMULATE_OUTGOING_ARGS and the i386

[Jeffrey A Law <law at cygnus dot com>]

  In message <19981025144959.B341@cerebro.laendle>you write:
  > I did exactly the same in pgcc (Bernd, why didn't you tell me ;), and it
  > was neither a win for amdk6 (where it is recommended) nor on intel chips
  > (slowdown was in the 3-10% range). The code is still there (just disabled).
  > 
  > Of course, I had one subl per call, but I don't think thats was the major
  > performance bottleneck.
That's not exactly what we were talking about, but it's close.  We'd avoid the
subl and addl before/after the call (they migrate into the prologue/epilogue
and thus are executed only once).

Interesting data though.  It means that it'd be an uphill battle performance
wise.  I've always felt the biggest win for this kind of stuff would be in
being able to eliminate the frame pointer by default.  Is it enough to make up
a 3-10% loss?  I don't know.

jeff