>There was a bug in the fix for bug #2467. I fixed it in rev #9705. can
>you check if that solves the code size regression for you?
Yes things seem to be back to normal.
Code size for that example is at 39088 bytes in #9707 vs 39124 in #9767 and >
50k in between.
---
On 30.07.2016 09:03, alvin albrecht wrote:
>
> Sometime after #9676 and up to and including #9682, I am seeing an
> increase in z80 binary sizes of 25% in some compiles. It seems to be
> connected to increase spill to the stack and higher use of index
> registers in accessing stack variables. I
On Sat, 30 Jul 2016, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote:
> On 30.07.2016 10:02, Erik Petrich wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 30 Jul 2016, alvin albrecht wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sometime after #9676 and up to and including #9682, I am seeing an
>>> increase
>>> in z80 binary sizes of 25% in some compiles. It see
On 30.07.2016 10:02, Erik Petrich wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 30 Jul 2016, alvin albrecht wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Sometime after #9676 and up to and including #9682, I am seeing an
>> increase
>> in z80 binary sizes of 25% in some compiles. It seems to be connected to
>> increase spill to the stack and hig
On Sat, 30 Jul 2016, alvin albrecht wrote:
Sometime after #9676 and up to and including #9682, I am seeing an increase
in z80 binary sizes of 25% in some compiles. It seems to be connected to
increase spill to the stack and higher use of index registers in accessing
stack variables. I wil
Sometime after #9676 and up to and including #9682, I am seeing an increase in
z80 binary sizes of 25% in some compiles. It seems to be connected to increase
spill to the stack and higher use of index registers in accessing stack
variables. I will try to look closer to nail down what it is b
