[llvm-dev] Recent -Os code size regressions

James Molloy via llvm-dev
Sat, 21 Nov 2015 00:04:45 -0000

Hi Steve,

That commit gives significant performance improvements, so I'm not happy
reverting it because of the code size increase. A lot of the code size
increase is backend dependent, and I have a set of patches that improves
the codegen drastically on ARM at least. The midend is generating better
code, and more optimisable code (and it's about 30% more performance too).

James
On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 at 00:01, Steve King <steve at metrokings.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at
linaro.org>
> wrote:
> > On 19 November 2015 at 19:08, Steve King via llvm-dev
> > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >> Does the community have bots or humans tracking code size for -Os
> >> builds?
> >
> > Hi Steve,
> >
> > I still haven't got around doing a CI for EEMBC or SPEC on ARM. I
do
> > track performance every release, but not code size at -Os.
> >
> >>  I've noticed troubling regressions lately.  Sometime near Nov
> >> 5, the EEMBC bitmnp01 benchmark grew by 25% for ARMv7m and 35% for
> >> i586.  That's ghastly.  This week, the EEMBC matrix01 workload
grew by
> >> 5% for ARMv7m and 3% for i586.
> >
> > Hum, v7M is even lower priority for me at the moment. :)
> >
> > Though, I have to say, 25% is really bad. Can you bisect to see which
> > commit was that?
>
> Hi Renato, Thanks for advising.  The commit is:
>
> [llvm] r252152 - [SimplifyCFG] Tweak heuristic for merging conditional
> stores
>
> Can this be reverted until the surprising code size impact is
> understood?  I'm about to leave for the week, so I can't delve
further
> anytime soon.
>
> Regards,
> -steve
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151121/4a431e5c/attachment.html>