This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH][ARM] Tweak HONOR_REG_ALLOC_ORDER


On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 6:05 PM Wilco Dijkstra <Wilco.Dijkstra@arm.com> wrote:
>
> Setting HONOR_REG_ALLOC_ORDER improves codesize with -Os, however it generates
> slower and larger code with -O2 and higher.  So only set it when optimizing for
> size.  On Cortex-A57 this improves SPECINT2006 by 0.15% and SPECFP2006 by 0.25%
> while reducing codesize.
>
> Bootstrap OK, OK for commit?
>
> ChangeLog:
> 2019-09-09  Wilco Dijkstra  <wdijkstr@arm.com>
>
>         * config/arm/arm.h (HONOR_REG_ALLOC_ORDER): Set when optimizing for size.
>
> --
> diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm.h b/gcc/config/arm/arm.h
> index 8d023389eec469ad9c8a4e88edebdad5f3c23769..e3473e29fbbb964ff1136c226fbe30d35dbf7b39 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/arm/arm.h
> +++ b/gcc/config/arm/arm.h
> @@ -1065,9 +1065,8 @@ extern int arm_regs_in_sequence[];
>  /* Use different register alloc ordering for Thumb.  */
>  #define ADJUST_REG_ALLOC_ORDER arm_order_regs_for_local_alloc ()
>
> -/* Tell IRA to use the order we define rather than messing it up with its
> -   own cost calculations.  */
> -#define HONOR_REG_ALLOC_ORDER 1
> +/* Tell IRA to use the order we define when optimizing for size.  */
> +#define HONOR_REG_ALLOC_ORDER optimize_size

My only question would be whether it's more suitable to use
optimize_function_for_size_p(cfun) instead as IIRC that gives us a
chance with lto rather than the global optimize_size.

Otherwise ok .

regards
Ramana


>
>  /* Interrupt functions can only use registers that have already been
>     saved by the prologue, even if they would normally be


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]