From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2888 invoked by alias); 19 Jan 2008 16:28:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 2879 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Jan 2008 16:28:56 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 19 Jan 2008 16:28:39 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m0JGSbk7016129 for ; Sat, 19 Jan 2008 11:28:37 -0500 Received: from zebedee.littlepinkcloud.COM (vpn-14-16.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.14.16]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m0JGSaPv005379; Sat, 19 Jan 2008 11:28:36 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zebedee.littlepinkcloud.COM (8.13.8/8.13.5) with ESMTP id m0JGSWui024377; Sat, 19 Jan 2008 16:28:33 GMT Message-ID: <47922530.9010602@redhat.com> Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 16:51:00 -0000 From: Andrew Haley User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20071019) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Edelsohn CC: Gabriel Paubert , Sergei Poselenov , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, "'rt'" Subject: Re: powercp-linux cross GCC 4.2 vs GCC 4.0.0: -Os code size regression? [Emcraft #11717] References: <478DE61D.3060709@emcraft.com> <18317.63987.952041.910752@zebedee.pink> <478E0CC7.6060107@emcraft.com> <18318.13924.827172.239806@zebedee.pink> <478E3A4F.7070700@emcraft.com> <18318.15219.833552.235@zebedee.pink> <478F6AAA.4090402@emcraft.com> <20080117180819.GA26457@iram.es> <4791F924.6020603@redhat.com> <200801191624.m0JGOvlM024140@makai.watson.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <200801191624.m0JGOvlM024140@makai.watson.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00304.txt.bz2 David Edelsohn wrote: >>>>>> Andrew Haley writes: > > Andrew> I suspect that the real reason for the change in save/restore is because > Andrew> not using lmw/stmw is faster. That's just a guess though. gcc could probably > Andrew> be fixed to use ldmw/stmw if -Os is used. > > Andrew> Anyway, now we've found something specific this is for the ppc maintainer to comment. > > GCC does use load/store multiple and load/store string > instructions if -Os is used, but not when the sequence is broken up by a > fixed register. Err, why not? Thanks, Andrew.