"Doug Gregor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 3/20/07, Kaveh R. GHAZI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Would you please consider testing the 16 bit tree code as you did for 8 vs
> > 9 bits? Perhaps you could also measure memory usage for all three
> > solutions?
>
> I've measured the
For this code (from PR23525):
extern int waiting_for_initial_map;
extern int cp_pipe[2];
extern int pc_pipe[2];
extern int close (int __fd);
void
first_map_occurred(void)
{
close(cp_pipe[0]);
close(pc_pipe[1]);
waiting_for_initial_map = 0;
}
gcc -march=i686 -O2 generates:
michael meeks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi there,
>
> I've been doing a little thinking about how to improve OO.o startup
> performance recently; and - well, relocation processing happens to be
> the single, biggest thing that most tools flag.
Have you tried eliminating all the
"Etienne Lorrain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Etienne Lorrain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Some of those problem may also exist in GCC-4.0 because this
> >> version (and the 4.1 I tested) gives me an increase of 60% of the
> >> code size compared to 3.4.3.
> >
> >
>
Dan Nicolaescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Matt Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Richard Henderson wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 10:57:07PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > >
> > >>I would expect it
Matt Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Richard Henderson wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 10:57:07PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >
> >>I would expect it to be drastically faster. However this won't show up
> >>clearly in the bootstrap. The, bar none, longest bit of the boot
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kenner) writes:
> The correct viewpoint is "we shouldn't remove CSE until every
> *profitable* transformation it makes is subsumed by something else".
>
> And, as I understand it, the claim is that this is not yet true for the
> following of jumps and m
