<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
color:#44546A;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#44546A">Maybe adjust this to be different for –Os, -Oz than for –O2?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#44546A"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#44546A">Kevin Smith<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#44546A"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces@lists.llvm.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>James Molloy via llvm-dev<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, November 20, 2015 4:05 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Steve King <steve@metrokings.com>; Renato Golin <renato.golin@linaro.org><br>
<b>Cc:</b> llvm-dev <llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [llvm-dev] Recent -Os code size regressions<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Steve,<br>
<br>
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).
<br>
<br>
James<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 at 00:01, Steve King <<a href="mailto:steve@metrokings.com">steve@metrokings.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal">On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Renato Golin <<a href="mailto:renato.golin@linaro.org" target="_blank">renato.golin@linaro.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> On 19 November 2015 at 19:08, Steve King via llvm-dev<br>
> <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>> Does the community have bots or humans tracking code size for -Os<br>
>> builds?<br>
><br>
> Hi Steve,<br>
><br>
> I still haven't got around doing a CI for EEMBC or SPEC on ARM. I do<br>
> track performance every release, but not code size at -Os.<br>
><br>
>> I've noticed troubling regressions lately. Sometime near Nov<br>
>> 5, the EEMBC bitmnp01 benchmark grew by 25% for ARMv7m and 35% for<br>
>> i586. That's ghastly. This week, the EEMBC matrix01 workload grew by<br>
>> 5% for ARMv7m and 3% for i586.<br>
><br>
> Hum, v7M is even lower priority for me at the moment. :)<br>
><br>
> Though, I have to say, 25% is really bad. Can you bisect to see which<br>
> commit was that?<br>
<br>
Hi Renato, Thanks for advising. The commit is:<br>
<br>
[llvm] r252152 - [SimplifyCFG] Tweak heuristic for merging conditional stores<br>
<br>
Can this be reverted until the surprising code size impact is<br>
understood? I'm about to leave for the week, so I can't delve further<br>
anytime soon.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
-steve<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>