On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Kaelyn Uhrain <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Kostya Serebryany <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 1:18 AM, Anton Korobeynikov < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Kostya, >>> >>> >>> > The patches are attached, the llvm patch is also published >>> > here: http://codereview.appspot.com/5544058/ >>> What is the performance impact of this? >>> >> >> Good point (I assume you mean compile-time performance, not the >> performance of compiled programs). >> I've verified that the compile-time did not change by building 403.gcc >> and 483.xalancbmk with the original and modified clang with -O1. >> > > Out of curiosity did you check the compile-time performance for 64-bit > clang/llvm, > 64-bit. On 32-bit there may be some change indeed, but we still need more attributes, right? :) > 32-bit clang/llvm, or both? I would imagine that extending attributes to > 64-bit would have negligible impact for a 64-bit compiler binary but > potentially greater impact for a 32-bit one as they would no longer fit in > a single register. > > Cheers, > Kaelyn >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
