This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug middle-end/83665] [8 regression] Big code size regression and some code quality improvement at Jan 2 2018
- From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:47:03 +0000
- Subject: [Bug middle-end/83665] [8 regression] Big code size regression and some code quality improvement at Jan 2 2018
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-83665-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83665
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Unsure what to do about this bug -- things have gone back a bit but as you say
the cap introduced artificial limit back in times. But we do have
large-function-growth to limit big_speedup for large functions, no?
There was big size improvement with the big_speedup fuckup and comparing to
before that we only "regressed" for a few cases, like overall size is still
improving.
So is this fixed or do you plan more changes?