search for: r252152

...size. It removes a load of stores and branches. > > I know a backend change I made to ARM isn't behaving as well as it could, and I have patches to fix that. Speculatively reverting midend patches isn't the best way to approach this, in my opinion! :) > ​​ For i586, the effect of r252152 seems to cause cmoves instead of branches. ​ Code size increase is +35% for i586. Unfortunately the object files are wildly different in a way that does not seem to occur in other workloads. I tried to clip a concise before and after case. Before ​: As a reference point, I found OR $0x408 and OR...

...e 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...

...e 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

Hello LLVM, Does the community have bots or humans tracking code size for -Os builds? 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. Regards, -steve