From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26742 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2008 11:37:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 26729 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Jan 2008 11:37:52 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mathups.math.u-psud.fr (HELO matups.math.u-psud.fr) (129.175.52.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:37:27 +0000 Received: from barah.math.u-psud.fr (barah.math.u-psud.fr [129.175.52.24]) by matups.math.u-psud.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 631567733; Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:37:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by barah.math.u-psud.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5252FD02D9; Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:37:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from barah.math.u-psud.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (barah [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 23329-09; Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:37:16 +0100 (CET) Received: from ip6-localhost (topodyn-ng.math.u-psud.fr [129.175.50.33]) by barah.math.u-psud.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD916D02B8; Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:37:16 +0100 (CET) From: Duncan Sands To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: powercp-linux cross GCC 4.2 vs GCC 4.0.0: -Os code size regression? Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:15:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20071204.744707) Cc: Sergei Poselenov References: <478DE61D.3060709@emcraft.com> In-Reply-To: <478DE61D.3060709@emcraft.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200801161237.14734.duncan.sands@math.u-psud.fr> Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2008-01/txt/msg00231.txt.bz2 Hi, > I'm using the ppc-linux gcc-4.2.2 compiler and noted the code > size have increased significantly (about 40%!), comparing with > old 4.0.0 when using the -Os option. Same code, same compile- > and configuration-time options. Binutils are differ > (2.16.1 vs 2.17.50), though. what LLVM version is old 4.0.0? Are you compiling C++ (I don't know what CSiBE is)? Are you using exception handling? > I've looked at the CSiBE testing results for ppc-elf with -Os, > comparing gcc_4_0_0 with mainline and found that the mainline > actually optimizes better, at least for the CSiBE test environment. > After some analysis I've came to the following results: > Number of packages in the CSiBE test environment: 863 > N of packages where mainline GCC optimizes better: 290 > N of packages where mainline GCC optimizes worse: 436 =46rom these numbers it looks like llvm-gcc is better than mainline most of the time. However you say: "... found that the mainline actually optimizes better". Can you please clarify. Best wishes, Duncan.