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.

Reply via email to