On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 3:34 AM, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
> Adding x86 maintainer, ping?
>
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 05:53:41AM -0700, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> For x86, STC still gives better results for optimise-for-size than
>> "simple" does. So use STC at -Os as well.
>>
>> Is this okay fo
Adding x86 maintainer, ping?
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 05:53:41AM -0700, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> For x86, STC still gives better results for optimise-for-size than
> "simple" does. So use STC at -Os as well.
>
> Is this okay for trunk?
>
>
> Segher
>
>
> 2015-10-16 Segher Boessenkool
>
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 02:55:54PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 10/16/2015 02:53 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >For x86, STC still gives better results for optimise-for-size than
> >"simple" does. So use STC at -Os as well.
>
> For how many targets is this true, and for the others, what is
On 10/16/2015 02:53 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
For x86, STC still gives better results for optimise-for-size than
"simple" does. So use STC at -Os as well.
For how many targets is this true, and for the others, what is the
biggest win from "simple"? If the list of targets which get patches
