On 2014.09.27 at 07:59 +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> 
> > It seems that in this case we reject too many of equality candidates?
> > It think the original numbers was about 4-5% but later some equivalences was
> > disabled because of devirt/aliasing issues. Do you compare it with gold ICF
> > enabled? There are quite few obvious improvements to the analysis that can
> > be done, but I guess we need to analyze the interesting cases one by one.

Forgot to post the binary size numbers (in bytes):

              | gold's icf off | gold's icf on  |
--------------+----------------+----------------+
gcc's icf off |    79793880    |    74881040    |
--------------+---------------------------------+
gcc's icf on  |    78043608    |    73612800    |
--------------+----------------+----------------+

-- 
Markus

Reply via email to