From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-help-return-62969-listarch-gcc-help=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 6039 invoked by alias); 7 Jan 2019 16:59:41 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-help.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 6028 invoked by uid 89); 7 Jan 2019 16:59:41 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=
X-HELO: mail-wr1-f44.google.com
Received: from mail-wr1-f44.google.com (HELO mail-wr1-f44.google.com) (209.85.221.44) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 07 Jan 2019 16:59:39 +0000
Received: by mail-wr1-f44.google.com with SMTP id q18so1150457wrx.9        for <gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>; Mon, 07 Jan 2019 08:59:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;        d=gmail.com; s=20161025;        h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to         :cc;        bh=ushcw3lkMivyhAzTW2a0O8m2QtaZ0zlhO3ptvTC5S2w=;        b=M16Q3FqcF+/VL9f1OqXjn5S9vgr7sX6zb2yHQBf97niuOngMldoEsG8f6slMNu91EP         dh2KgLnrvoYN7LlH+SLaVd7rEoe8dDiv/iVAwD/t381BlibKD2MIiUT/hOBY216Un8o1         a+r8lcAaH1Lj3PiqYrUaRpa2I3Dz/E98SXX+hes/PU9DDmOAzUfBtsxOieCGeBS0nMPV         kog+BqjisiZa1ViHLDNyvHXhWSthlB21pJELGilUN655UHvsJcuKGycReLwVuV6K19GG         nMhG+MJZW12EorD/VTMjWeIX8ttW/GntO2+ZEb6fLXb2U8u4O5chWKOqmwDsRIEq11Er         aMaQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALeSs2LtzV-X7Jo8y93-uMPscoC9qXRsPneX+Qj3=YVfziWrJg@mail.gmail.com> <b7fa533fe1b9abff32933d834d34ddeba6189969.camel@mengyan1223.wang>
In-Reply-To: <b7fa533fe1b9abff32933d834d34ddeba6189969.camel@mengyan1223.wang>
From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2019 16:59:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAH6eHdS_=QWDwN-4gUZP+L6=4=ijSCc6Mg9tAbPShJ=Rh4orTg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: GCC update increased the file size by 4x on PowerPC port
To: Felipe Gohring <lipee36@gmail.com>
Cc: gcc-help <gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2019-01/txt/msg00021.txt.bz2

On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 at 16:56, Xi Ruoyao wrote:
>
> On 2019-01-07 11:14 -0500, Felipe Gohring wrote:
> > Hello,
> > recently, I have updated my GCC PowerPC port from 6.3 to 8.2
> > As my architecture relies on SPE extension, I am using the SPE brench of
> > GCC (powerpc-eabispe-*).
> >
> > Now, my question is related to the generated code. When using V6.3, I had
> > files of about 10k. After upgrading to V8.2, the very same file has more
> > than 40k. Why is that? Please keep in mind that I am using exactly the same
> > compilation flags (*-m32 -mmfpgpr -mabi=spe -mfloat-gprs=double -nostdlib
> > -ffreestanding -fno-builtin -O0 -g3 -std=c11 -Wno-packed-bitfield-compat
> > -Wall -Werror*) and source code, the only thing changing is the compiler
> > version. I wouldn't mind having a memory footprint a bit bigger, but the
> > overhead added is beyond acceptable.
>
> Is there any difference w/o -g3?  A increased size of debugging symbols
> is not a bug and may provide better debug information for GDB.  If the
> object code itself bloats there may be a regression.

And there's no memory overhead for debug info.

Compare the sizes of the files by using the 'size' command, not 'ls -l'.