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] | |
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 04:55:19PM +0300, Sergei Poselenov wrote:Hello,[snipped]
I've just noted an error in my calculations: not 40%, but 10% regression (used gdb to do the calculations and forgot to convert inputs to float). Sorry.
But the problem still persists for me - I'm building an embedded firmware (U-Boot) and it doesn't fit into the reserved space anymore.
As for the CSiBE results - the average regression is
3%, including top 3 winners:
100% (32768 vs 16384 for "linux-2.4.23-pre3-testplatform - arch/testplatform/kernel/init_task")
A change from an exact power of 2 to the next one looks very
suspiscious: I seriously doubt that it is a code generation
or instruction choice issue. While there might be a relatively
small increase in size inherent to the compiler, it looks like it then goes to a "round to the next power of 2" step.
Do you set the right options for your particular processor (-Os might not override some scheduling decisions and the default target processor might have changed between GCC releases)?
I don't know now, actually, this is what I'm asking. As for the target processor - as I stated in the initial message:
I removed all "-ffixed" option (just for test - we surely need them) - it doesn't change the size of the resultant gcc-4.2.2 code.
Regards, Sergei
Regards, Gabriel
| Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
|---|---|---|
| Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |