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 RFC] SH: Use FRAME_GROWS_DOWNWARD


Joern RENNECKE <joern.rennecke@st.com> wrote:
> Come to think of it, I can't actually recall why we ended up with
> an inverted allocation pattern for -fomit-frame-pointer, and hence
> I can't verify we still do by merely looking at the source.
> The partial spilling code might also have changed the correlation
> between offset and usage frequency for -fno-omit-frame-pointer.
> This probably calls for some experiments.

I've done a simple experimentation with compiling gcc itself by
the original and the patched compiler.  Some object sizes with
-O2 are here:

		 original compiler		patched compiler
		 no-omit-frame	omit-frame	no-omit-frame	omit-frame
alias.o		 35180		34336		35144		34300	
alloc-pool.o	 1368		1336		1368		1336	 
attribs.o	 3260		3260		3260		3260	 
bb-reorder.o	 19720		19592		20148		19772	 
bitmap.o	 10840		10616		10900		10612	 
bt-load.o	 18476		18368		18068		17984	 
builtins.o	 140084		138252		140324		138444	 
c-aux-info.o	 6184		6216		6224		6212	 
c-common.o	 158660		156188		159148		155984	 
c-convert.o	 2204		2204		2204		2204	 
c-cppbuiltin.o	 12992		12916		13008		12932	 
c-decl.o	 102108		100456		102356		100884	 
c-dump.o	 1184		1152		1184		1152	 
c-errors.o	 1620		1620		1620		1620	 
c-format.o	 56612		56088		55864		55520	 
c-gimplify.o	 2744		2776		2744		2776	 
c-incpath.o	 5260		5260		5292		5260	 
c-lang.o	 14404		14404		14404		14404	 
c-lex.o		 12288		12180		12272		12220	 
c-objc-common.o	 4092		3996		4092		3996	 
c-opts.o	 26108		25284		26108		25284	 
c-parser.o	 74548		73648		74484		73596	 
c-pch.o		 8340		8308		8340		8308	 
c-ppoutput.o	 6796		6764		6796		6764	 
c-pragma.o	 11328		11416		11384		11288	 
c-pretty-print.o 24824		23736		24824		23736	 
c-semantics.o	 2020		2020		2052		2020	 
c-typeck.o	 99940		98856		99856		98480	 
caller-save.o	 11536		11416		11600		11536	 
calls.o		 38180		37892		37928		37608	 
cfg.o		 17280		16864		17272		16920	 
cfganal.o	 10708		10472		10708		10472

It seems that there is no clear law between the original and
the patched one, though the size of the object may be not so
good measure.

Regards,
	kaz


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