On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 09:38:00AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> I tested on 30-something targets (all *-linux), and only mips64 regressed
> a little, everything else improved.
I meant alpha, btw. 0.08% code size growth. And the biggest winner is
i386, with a similar shrink. Most targets
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 11:41:58PM +0900, Oleg Endo wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-05-13 at 09:38 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 08:27:15AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > > Tests that now fail, but worked before (3 tests):
> > >
> > > gcc.target/sh/pr51244-11.c scan-assembler-not
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 08:27:15AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> sh3-linux-gnu and sh3eb-linux-gnu:
>
>
> Tests that now fail, but worked before (3 tests):
>
> gcc.target/sh/pr51244-11.c scan-assembler-not subc|and|bra
> gcc.target/sh/pr51244-11.c scan-assembler-times bf\t0f 1
>
On 5/13/19 8:38 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 08:27:15AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>> sh3-linux-gnu and sh3eb-linux-gnu:
>
> I test sh2 and sh4, but not sh3 :-)
>
>> Tests that now fail, but worked before (3 tests):
>>
>> gcc.target/sh/pr51244-11.c scan-assembler-not
On Mon, 2019-05-13 at 09:38 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 08:27:15AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > sh3-linux-gnu and sh3eb-linux-gnu:
>
> I test sh2 and sh4, but not sh3 :-)
>
> > Tests that now fail, but worked before (3 tests):
> >
> > gcc.target/sh/pr51244-11.c
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 08:27:15AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> sh3-linux-gnu and sh3eb-linux-gnu:
I test sh2 and sh4, but not sh3 :-)
> Tests that now fail, but worked before (3 tests):
>
> gcc.target/sh/pr51244-11.c scan-assembler-not subc|and|bra
> gcc.target/sh/pr51244-11.c scan-assembler-times
sh3-linux-gnu and sh3eb-linux-gnu:
Tests that now fail, but worked before (3 tests):
gcc.target/sh/pr51244-11.c scan-assembler-not subc|and|bra
gcc.target/sh/pr51244-11.c scan-assembler-times bf\t0f 1
gcc.target/sh/pr51244-11.c scan-assembler-times bt\t0f 1
Previously we'd match this
