On Wed, 2013-02-27 at 22:28 +0000, Richard Sandiford wrote: > FWIW, after seeing that, I tried the patch below. Disabling > ADJUST_REG_ALLOC_ORDER seemed to be a very mixed bag sizewise though -- > certainly not the consistent win that I hoped -- and I wasn't set up to > do proper speed testing. In the end I'm afraid I just let it drop. > > Thanks, > Richard
I'll try your patch on some of my benchmarks and see what happens. One interesting thing I have noticed (sizewise) is that not using t0-t7 at all in MIPS16 code resulted in a code size reduction of around 1%. Steve Ellcey
