On Mon, 2012-10-08 at 11:09 -0700, Mike Stump wrote: > On Oct 8, 2012, at 9:21 AM, Steve Ellcey <sell...@mips.com> wrote: > > The gcc.target/octeon-bbit-2.c is failing with -Os because that optimization > > level does not do whichever optimization it is that results in a bbit > > instead > > of a bbit[01]l. I would like to skip this test for -Os the way it already > > gets > > skipped for -O0. > > > > Tested on mips-mti-elf. Ok for checkin? > > Ideally I'd like a mips expert to weigh in on this. The issue is, is the > code smaller with the other instruction? > If so, is there a reasonable way to obtain that type of win more often in the > port with -Os? Now, if you are that > mips expert, that's fine, but, trivially you don't need my approval to check > it in. If the code is larger, > trivially, the patch is ok. If the optimization generally hurt code size and > can't be made to win, the patch is ok. > If always the same size, it would seem ok. I just don't have the mips > specific background to know which case this > is.
Well, I checked -O1, -O2 and -Os. The -Os code is smaller then -O1 but larger then -O2. I didn't dig deep enough to find out exactly which optimization is causing the change in instruction usage. Perhaps Richard Sandiford will have an opinion on this change. Steve Ellcey sell...@mips.com
