https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90340
--- Comment #22 from Fredrik Hederstierna
---
Was "max_ratio_for_size = 2" as default changed?
Also changing this to "1" did not by far reach size of gcc-8.2 unfortunately,
I guess we are assuming this code growth depends on other regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90340
--- Comment #23 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Fredrik Hederstierna from comment #22)
> Was "max_ratio_for_size = 2" as default changed?
No.
> Also changing this to "1" did not by far reach size of gcc-8.2 unfortunately,
Note that the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90340
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90340
--- Comment #19 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue May 14 10:00:53 2019
New Revision: 271156
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271156=gcc=rev
Log:
Fix a test-case in PR middle-end/90340.
2019-05-14 marxin
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90340
--- Comment #20 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #18)
> The new test fails on aarch64:
> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr90340-2.c scan-tree-dump switchlower1 ";; GIMPLE
> switch case clusters: 37 88 99 100 105 110 111 115
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90340
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90340
--- Comment #17 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Fredrik Hederstierna from comment #16)
> Still you cannot reach code size as gcc-8.3.0 ? So something in new
> switch-case compilation generates larger code still?
The biggest difference from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90340
--- Comment #16 from Fredrik Hederstierna
---
Still you cannot reach code size as gcc-8.3.0 ? So something in new switch-case
compilation generates larger code still?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90340
--- Comment #15 from Martin Liška ---
With addition of the arguments users can drive code growth more fine. May I
close this PR as resolved?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90340
--- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Fri May 10 06:32:31 2019
New Revision: 271053
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271053=gcc=rev
Log:
Add params for jump-table expansion params (PR middle-end/90340).
2019-05-10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90340
--- Comment #13 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Fredrik Hederstierna from comment #9)
> I did the test suggested, the results was as follows
>
> A. gcc-8.2.0
> B. gcc-9.1.0
> C. gcc-9.1.0 -fno-jump-tables
> D. gcc-9.1.0 patched
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90340
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #12 from Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90340
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
> I'm curious how much can save following patch:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/tree-switch-conversion.h b/gcc/tree-switch-conversion.h
> index b3bc4b9ddf7..904827fa040
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90340
--- Comment #10 from Fredrik Hederstierna
---
Tested also gcc-9.1.0 "max_ratio_for_size = 1" just out of curiosity
results was similar compared to gcc-8.2.0:
Overall CSiBE was
2 417 695 bytes (+4185 bytes, +0.17%)
Example file CSiBE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90340
--- Comment #9 from Fredrik Hederstierna
---
I did the test suggested, the results was as follows
A. gcc-8.2.0
B. gcc-9.1.0
C. gcc-9.1.0 -fno-jump-tables
D. gcc-9.1.0 patched "max_ratio_for_size = 2"
Overall CSiBE was
A: 2 413 510 bytes
B: 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90340
--- Comment #8 from Fredrik Hederstierna
---
Ok, thannks, I will try to have a look at it later tonight (I'm at my regular
job now ;-)
Thanks/Fredrik
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90340
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Fredrik Hederstierna from comment #5)
> I use patched sources from
> http://gcc.hederstierna.com/csibe
I've just tried that but I see quite some compilation errors:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90340
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
> I'm curious how much can save following patch:
>
Plus how much can you cave with 9.1 and -fno-jump-tables?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90340
--- Comment #5 from Fredrik Hederstierna
---
I use patched sources from
http://gcc.hederstierna.com/csibe
I think you could download and try it out.
Toolchain I build with
https://github.com/fredrikhederstierna/buildbuddy
Otherwise I think
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90340
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Simplified test-case:
$ cat /tmp/csibe.c
int a;
int foo(char c) {
switch (c) {
case 'c':
return a;
case 's':
return 3;
case 'n':
return 1;
case '%':
return -2;
case 'o':
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90340
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
21 matches
Mail list logo
