https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112470
--- Comment #7 from Richard Sandiford <rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to John Dong from comment #6) > For applications without stack protection, there is no difference because > the function stack frame not changed when aarch64_save_regs_above_locals_p > is false. I didn't run any spec tests, but I saw about a 0.5% CPU usage > increasing for some applications between patched -fstack-protector-strong > and unpatched -fstack-protector-strong. Thanks! For the non-stack-protector comparison: I meant how much overhead do you see when you enable -fstack-protector-strong with the old compiler vs. not enabling it? In other words, I was wondering about the old unprotected vs. old protected comparison, rather than the old unprotected vs. new unprotected (which I agree shouldn't change).
