asb added a comment. In D152279#4415974 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D152279#4415974>, @MaskRay wrote:
> However, RISC-V `-msmall-data-limit=` is probably a case warranting a > difference. > The global pointer relaxation has a very limited value (benchmarked by > multiple parties, including a party which implemented this feature in the GNU > toolchain: even they can only say the optimization only applies to very > specific projects). > The default value is confusing: as explained by the summary. > > I suspect that `-msmall-data-limit=8` is too conservative, maybe 16 would be > better, I don't know. I think global pointer relaxation users should toggle > this by themselves, not relying on `0` or `8` default decided by a bunch of > strange conditions. I don't disagree that the small data limit being 8 rather than something else doesn't seem to be particularly well motivated, but I understand that the case where the option does make a difference is on embedded targets (I think the data that was shared before was for SPEC, but could be wrong?). I think we can generally expect more willingness for people targeting embedded systems to explore different compiler flags, but just matching gcc does feel like a better default. What do you think about keeping the default for bare metal targets? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D152279/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D152279 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
