search for: src_harvested_dec_09

[cross-posting to the GCC and LLVM lists] I've updated the code size results here: http://embed.cs.utah.edu/embarrassing/dec_09/ The changes for this run were: - delete a number of testcases that contained use of uninitialized local variables - turn off frame pointer emission for all compilers - ask all compilers to target x86 + SSE3 - ask all compilers to not emit stack protector

...gehr wrote: > Hopefully the results are more fair and useful now. Again, feedback is > appreciated. I would also avoid testcases using volatile. Smaller code on these testcases is often a sign of miscompilation rather than optimization. For example, http://embed.cs.utah.edu/embarrassing/src_harvested_dec_09/076389.c is miscompiled on GCC 3.4 and SunCC 5.10. Sorry for not noticing yesterday. Paolo

...e results are more fair and useful now. Again, feedback is >> appreciated. > > I would also avoid testcases using volatile. Smaller code on these > testcases is often a sign of miscompilation rather than optimization. > For example, > http://embed.cs.utah.edu/embarrassing/src_harvested_dec_09/076389.c is > miscompiled on GCC 3.4 and SunCC 5.10. > Perhaps just leaving out those volatile tescases which are miscompiled on other platforms, since not every volatile testcase fails for all compilers. :-) -bw

Hi Paolo, > I would also avoid testcases using volatile. Smaller code on these testcases > is often a sign of miscompilation rather than optimization. For example, > http://embed.cs.utah.edu/embarrassing/src_harvested_dec_09/076389.c is > miscompiled on GCC 3.4 and SunCC 5.10. Yeah, there are definitely several examples where small code is generated by miscompilation, especially of volatiles. However I would prefer to leave these testcases in, unless there is a strong feeling that they are too distracting. The...