https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66821
--- Comment #8 from Yulia Koval ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #7)
> (In reply to Yulia Koval from comment #6)
> > msticlxl58$ size miam
> >textdata bss dec hex filename
> > 72 0 0 72 48 miam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66821
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Yulia Koval from comment #6)
> msticlxl58$ size miam
>textdata bss dec hex filename
> 72 0 0 72 48 miam
> msticlxl58$ size march
>textdata bss
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66821
--- Comment #6 from Yulia Koval ---
msticlxl58$ size miam
textdata bss dec hex filename
72 0 0 72 48 miam
msticlxl58$ size march
textdata bss dec hex filename
81 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66821
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Yulia Koval from comment #4)
> The issue remains for -march=iamcu but not for -miamcu.
Let's fix -march=iamcu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66821
--- Comment #4 from Yulia Koval ---
The issue remains for -march=iamcu but not for -miamcu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66821
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Yulia Koval from comment #2)
> Well, second one looks better, but first one generates 9b smaller code.
> Can we disable this test for this target if it is not an issue?
This is a tuning issue. We wan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66821
--- Comment #2 from Yulia Koval ---
Well, second one looks better, but first one generates 9b smaller code.
Can we disable this test for this target if it is not an issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66821
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
Which code is better?
