From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-61980-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 21711 invoked by alias); 19 Oct 2002 19:01:37 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 21619 invoked from network); 19 Oct 2002 19:01:35 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO www.eyesopen.com) (12.96.199.11)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Oct 2002 19:01:35 -0000
Received: from localhost (roger@localhost)
	by www.eyesopen.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA09429;
	Sat, 19 Oct 2002 12:47:05 -0600
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 01:23:00 -0000
From: Roger Sayle <roger@eyesopen.com>
To: Zack Weinberg <zack@codesourcery.com>
cc: <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>, <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Bootstrap times on mainline are getting worse
In-Reply-To: <20021019181056.GG24290@codesourcery.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0210191234420.9286-100000@www.eyesopen.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg01204.txt.bz2


> I still think it's worth shrinking processor_costs - we're getting
> nickled and dimed to death on cache utilization, and this is a cheap
> way to get quite a bit of space back.

I agree it does no harm, and potentially some good.  Saving a few
hundred bytes is a step in the right direction, even if it'll have
little overall effect on GCC's multi-megabyte memory footprint.


> I'd wait until we really do have a cost above 256 and then change
> just that one entry to unsigned short.

Sounds very reasonable.


Roger
--