Michael Meissner wrote:
One of the things that I've been interested in is adding support to GCC to
compile individual functions with specific target options. I first presented a
draft at the Google mini-summit, and then another draft at the GCC developer
summit last July.
...
The proposal is a
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Michael Meissner wrote:
> > I'm wondering if this proposal would support specifying things
> > like adding -frounding-math when compiling specific functions.
> > ( This particular case is connected to pragma FENV_ACCESS though. )
>
> I imagine it could be made to work once th
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 05:08:11PM +0530, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> Hi Karthik,
>
> Thanks for your email .
>
> > > Hi Michael,
> > >
> > > I had a comment / query regarding Stage 2 where you talk about
> > > Function cloning for different targets.
> > >
> > > I understand that the mechanism
On Nov 29, 2007 9:29 PM, Weddington, Eric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> and I would also postulate the general embedded community, would
> *really* like to have this functionality, especially your Stage 1. There
> are many AVR, or embedded, applications where they are generally
> optimized for size,
AIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Function specific optimizations call for discussion
> >
> > One of the things that I've been interested in is adding
> > support to GCC to
> > compile individual functions with specific target options. I
> > first presented
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 12:58:55PM +0100, Sylvain Pion wrote:
> Michael Meissner a écrit :
> >One of the things that I've been interested in is adding support to GCC to
> >compile individual functions with specific target options. I first
> >presented a
> >draft at the Google mini-summit, and the
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 02:09:27PM +0530, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> I had a comment / query regarding Stage 2 where you talk about
> Function cloning for different targets.
>
> I understand that the mechanism is to have a hidden function pointer
> that actually gets initialize
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 02:25:46PM +0530, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Hit the send button a bit too soon on my earlier mail .
>
>
>
> > In the x86 world this would mean saying that an individual function can use
> > SSE5 instructions or SSE4.1 instructions. This would simplify things
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Meissner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 1:58 PM
> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Function specific optimizations call for discussion
>
> One of t
On 2007/11/29, J.C. Pizarro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, i wrote:
> Autovectorization is still a researching issue.
+--++--+ /---\ ++
| unroll-loops | -> | inline-functions | -> < big BBs > -> | autovectorize! |
+--++-
On 2007/11/29, Sylvain Pion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Michael Meissner a écrit :
> > One of the things that I've been interested in is adding support to GCC to
> > compile individual functions with specific target options. I first
> > presented a
> > draft at the Google mini-summit, and then another
Michael Meissner a écrit :
One of the things that I've been interested in is adding support to GCC to
compile individual functions with specific target options. I first presented a
draft at the Google mini-summit, and then another draft at the GCC developer
summit last July.
In the x86 world th
Hi Karthik,
Thanks for your email .
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > I had a comment / query regarding Stage 2 where you talk about
> > Function cloning for different targets.
> >
> > I understand that the mechanism is to have a hidden function pointer
> > that actually gets initialized based on the cpuid
On Nov 29, 2007 2:09 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> I had a comment / query regarding Stage 2 where you talk about
> Function cloning for different targets.
>
> I understand that the mechanism is to have a hidden function pointer
> that actually gets initializ
Hi,
Hit the send button a bit too soon on my earlier mail .
> In the x86 world this would mean saying that an individual function can use
> SSE5 instructions or SSE4.1 instructions. This would simplify things for
> people who need to write high performance libraries that run on different
> arc
Hi Michael,
I had a comment / query regarding Stage 2 where you talk about
Function cloning for different targets.
I understand that the mechanism is to have a hidden function pointer
that actually gets initialized based on the cpuid.
I don't know if it is worth the effort to have debug info als
On Nov 29, 2007 2:27 AM, Michael Meissner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One of the things that I've been interested in is adding support to GCC to
> compile individual functions with specific target options. I first presented
> a
> draft at the Google mini-summit, and then another draft at the GCC
One of the things that I've been interested in is adding support to GCC to
compile individual functions with specific target options. I first presented a
draft at the Google mini-summit, and then another draft at the GCC developer
summit last July.
In the x86 world this would mean saying that an
18 matches
Mail list logo
