>
>Hi Tobias,
>>
>>graphite consists of four flags "-floop-block", "-floop-interchange",
>>"-floop-stripmine" and "-fgraphite".
In fact I also think that we should not expose "-floop-stripmine" as a
flag because by itself it is never profitable.
Thanks,
Harsha
Hi Tobias,
>
>graphite consists of four flags "-floop-block", "-floop-interchange",
>"-floop-stripmine" and "-fgraphite".
>
>If any of these flags is set, we enable the graphite pass and we search
>for SCoPs.
>For every SCoP we try to apply transformations specified with
>"-floop-block", "-floop-in
Hello!
>
>> This is using the Polyhedron Fortran test.
>> http://www.polyhedron.co.uk/MFL6VW74649
>
>> Using several options, the gas_dyn test got much slower; however,
with
>> some options, the performance remained roughly the same.
>> In terms of the geometric mean, it is a slowdown of around 1%.
>> Result from http://www.suse.de/~gcctest/c++bench/polyhedron/
>> -ffast-math -funroll-loops -O3 -ftree-vectorize -march= ??? (opteron
I
>> think).
>> 14.59s -> 21.06s (44% slower)
>
I will look into it right now, but at first glance it does not look like
this benchmark is built with the cost mod
>Jagasia, Harsha wrote:
>
>> I still plan to submit a patch for the x86 target cost model tuning.
>
>Assuming that this isn't too dramatic, I'll leave approval of that
>during Stage 3 to the x86 back-end maintainers.
Thanks.
The patch involves some x86 back-en
>On 9/4/07, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> We are closing in on Stage 3, previously announced for September
10th.
>> At this point, I'm not aware of any reason to delay that date. Are
>> there any Stage 2 patches that people don't think will be submitted
by
>> that point?
>>
I still
Zdenek,
Can you send out your presentation too?
Thanks,
Harsha
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
>Zdenek Dvorak
>Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 3:46 PM
>To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
>Subject: Loop optimizations cheatsheet
>
>Hello,
>
>you can find t
Hello,
I am looking into writing scalar expansion and array privatization
passes for loop distribution with Sebastian.
Has scalar expansion and/or array privatization been implemented in gcc?
If so, how have they been implemented and also to what extent?
Does anyone have any pointers on where I can
Hi Dorit,
>loop-context when it helps you do things more efficiently. In any case,
>we'll have to have a much better cost model before we start packing
random
>sequences of stmts out of loops.
This is off topic from the discussion at hand, but we would be happy to
help with changing the cost mode
Hello,
In accordance with http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-09/msg00454.html, I am
looking for a reviewer for patches that add tuning for AMD's new
AMDFAM10 architecture to gcc.
The changes are all confined to the i386 backend and are only turned on
with -march=amdfam10 and/or -mtune=amdfam10. The
Hi,
I am looking to submit patches that tune for the new AMDFAM10
architecture.
The project is listed at http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/AMDFAM10 as a stage 2
project. I wanted to find out if it would be ok to submit patches for
this project in stage 1.
The changes in these patches are all confined in th
11 matches
Mail list logo
