Re: [GCC 3.0] Bad regression, binary size

["Tim Prince" <tprince at computer dot org>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc Espie" <espie@quatramaran.ens.fr>
To: <torvalds@transmeta.com>
Cc: <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 11:59 PM
Subject: Re: [GCC 3.0] Bad regression, binary size


> In article <200107082128.f68LS4x08156@penguin.transmeta.com> you
write:
> >gcc-3.0 already gets complaints for generating slower and more
bloated
> >code than previous gcc releases. That should tell people something.
>
> Try not to jumble things together, please. The ix86 alignment
properties
> is nothing new at all. You can't really use the `gcc 3.0 is slower
> than previous releases' argument as a lever against it.
>
> If gcc 3.0 is a problem for you, please dig deeper, and get the stack
> alignment issues in a separate thread.

Several commercial compilers have options to make the stack 4- 8-, or
maybe 16- byte aligned.  I'd rather pay the occasional price of a
16-byte aligned stack than continue with the current dilemma of certain
g++ implementations breaking with more than 4-byte alignment, and the
consequent poor performance on larger objects.  In spite of public
pronouncements that gcc is not meant to support technical computing,
there are people who use 64-bit or larger objects.  gcc on linux has not
followed the MS tactic of disabling support for long double,  for
example.