On 04/03/2011 09:38 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Tom de Vries <vries@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>> On 04/02/2011 09:47 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Tom de Vries <vries@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>>>> On 04/01/2011 05:18 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 16:45 +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>>>>> Reposting, with ChangeLog.
>>>>>
>>>>>  #define BRANCH_COST(speed_p, predictable_p) \
>>>>> -  (TARGET_32BIT ? 4 : (optimize > 0 ? 2 : 0))
>>>>> +  (TARGET_32BIT ? (TARGET_THUMB2 && optimize_size ? 1 : 4) \
>>>>> +               : (optimize > 0 ? 2 : 0))
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't use optimize_size here, use !speed_p.
>>>>>
>>>>> Otherwise OK.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Replaced optimize_size by !speed_p.
>>>
>>> I wonder if we can add a code-size test harness.  Using GNU size
>>> for examle, if available and a new dg-final { object-size SIZE } that
>>> fails when the size is greater than the specified one (of course all
>>> object-size tests with specific target restrictions).
>>
>> like this?
> 
> Yes!
> 
> I'm not sure finding the size binary is ok, 

Me neither. I just copied what I saw done for c++filt in
scan-assembler-dem-not, and found that it works for me.

> and maybe we need to
> verify that size output actually matches our expectation.  

Changes since previous post:
- split output of size into lines
- check format of first and second line
- replaced 'switch $what' with 'lsearch $what'

> Other than that it's exactly what I meant.
> 

Great.

> Mike?  Rainer?
> 

Thanks,
- Tom