On Wed, 2012-01-11 at 12:29 -0500, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> There is no visible effect of the patch on SPECFP2000 performance and
> size (the size increase is only about 0.02%) for x86 and x86-64.
>
> The patch does worsen performance of SPECINT2000 on x86 (about 0.5%) and
> x86-64 (about 0.3%)
On 01/10/2012 12:55 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
On Tue, 2012-01-10 at 12:20 -0500, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
Do we really need or want to create shuffle copies for insns that do not
have a two operand constraint?
Yes, I think so. As I remember I did some benchmarking and it gave some
"order" in har
On Tue, 2012-01-10 at 12:20 -0500, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> > Do we really need or want to create shuffle copies for insns that do not
> > have a two operand constraint?
> Yes, I think so. As I remember I did some benchmarking and it gave some
> "order" in hard register assignments and improved
On 01/07/2012 12:24 AM, Peter Bergner wrote:
Hi Vlad,
While debugging a slightly modified version of the test case in PR16458:
int
foo (unsigned int a, unsigned int b)
{
if (a == b) return 1;
if (a> b) return 2;
if (a< b) return 3;
if (a != b) return 4;
ret
Hi Vlad,
While debugging a slightly modified version of the test case in PR16458:
int
foo (unsigned int a, unsigned int b)
{
if (a == b) return 1;
if (a > b) return 2;
if (a < b) return 3;
if (a != b) return 4;
return 0;
}
I noticed a couple of ugly code gen warts w
