On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Kostya Serebryany <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > 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? :) > Their necessity would be all the more reason to understand the performance impact on a 32-bit compiler. :) > > >> 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
