This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [patch RFC] SH: Use FRAME_GROWS_DOWNWARD
Joern RENNECKE <joern.rennecke@st.com> wrote:
> have you compiled identical sources each time, or did you compile
> each compiler with itself?
The latter. I've tried the former and it looks there are no big
differences.
original compiler patched compiler
no omit-frame omit-frame no-omit-frame omit-fra
alias.o 35144 34300 35144 34300
alloc-pool.o 1368 1336 1368 1336
attribs.o 3260 3260 3260 3260
bb-reorder.o 19720 19592 20148 19772
bitmap.o 10868 10612 10900 10612
bt-load.o 18476 18368 18068 17984
builtins.o 140096 138296 140324 138444
c-aux-info.o 6180 6212 6224 6212
c-common.o 158656 156184 159148 155984
c-convert.o 2204 2204 2204 2204
c-cppbuiltin.o 12988 12912 13008 12932
c-decl.o 102104 100452 102356 100884
c-dump.o 1184 1152 1184 1152
c-errors.o 1620 1620 1620 1620
c-format.o 56608 56084 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 12284 12176 12272 12220
c-objc-common.o 4092 3996 4092 3996
c-opts.o 26108 25284 26108 25284
c-parser.o 74544 73644 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 99936 98852 99856 98480
caller-save.o 11492 11404 11600 11536
calls.o 38176 37888 37928 37608
cfg.o 17272 16856 17272 16920
cfganal.o 10708 10472 10708 10472
> Yes, gcc has a notion of the cost of individual accesses - the ones
> that are more frequent ae considered more costly, and are thus expected
> to be spilled later.
>
> I tried to sum up your numbers, but still the differences
> might be just noise:
I see. Do you have any idea of another experimentaions?
Regards,
kaz