We're out of tree codes; now what?

[Doug Gregor]

On 3/23/07, Kaveh R. GHAZI <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu> wrote:
> When I brought up the 16-bit option earlier, Jakub replied that x86 would
> get hosed worse because it's 16-bit accesses are not as efficient as it's
> 8 or 32 bit ones.
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-03/msg00763.html
>
> I assume you tested on Darwin?  Can you tell me if it was ppc or x86?

I tested on x86 (i686-pc-linux-gnu; processor is an Intel Core 2 Duo
E6600) and found a 1% slowdown with 16-bit codes vs. 8-bit codes.

  Cheers,
  Doug