This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: Code size regressions, mainline+branch


	I assume that you are referring to x86 executable size.  Can you
narrow the size regression any further?  Was binutils updated?

	Nothing in the first list of patch should have any effect unless
something strange is happening with unrolling sibling calls.  The second
list of patches also includes a sibcall change.

	The expand_expr change correctly makes the values assigned from
the string sign-extended.  Is the x86 port somehow choosing a different,
longer x86 instruction because it does not think the signed char fits in a
byte?

David


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