On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Richard Guenther <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Andi Kleen <a...@firstfloor.org> wrote: >> Igor Zamyatin <izamya...@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> Hi All! >>> >>> It is known that imul placement is rather critical for Atom processors >>> and changes try to improve imul scheduling for Atom. >>> >>> This gives +5% performance on several tests from new OA 2.0 testsuite >>> from EEMBC. >>> >>> Tested for i386 and x86-64, ok for trunk? >> >> Did you measure how much this slows down the compiler when compiling >> for Atom? The new pass looks rather slow. > > Also please explain why adjusting the automaton for Atom is not a way to > attack this issue.
If I understand the question correctly - it's a dynamic check and it's not clear how to describe this adjusting statically in machine description > > Richard. > >> -Andi >> >> -- >> a...@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only
