https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112470
--- Comment #8 from John Dong <dongjianqiang2 at huawei dot com> --- (In reply to Richard Sandiford from comment #7) > (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). Thank you for your reply. It appears there is a ~5% performance hit by enabling that option.