On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am resuming investigations about disabling peeling for
> alignment (see thread at
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2012-12/msg00036.html).
>
> As a reminder, I have a simple patch which disables peeling
> unconditionally and gives some
Hi,
I am resuming investigations about disabling peeling for
alignment (see thread at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2012-12/msg00036.html).
As a reminder, I have a simple patch which disables peeling
unconditionally and gives some improvement in benchmarks.
However, I've noticed a regression where a
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 6:50 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> "H.J. Lu" writes:
>>
>> i386.c has
>>
>>{
>> /* When not optimize for size, enable vzeroupper optimization for
>> TARGET_AVX with -fexpensive-optimizations and split 32-byte
>> AVX unaligned load/store. */
>
> This
"H.J. Lu" writes:
>
> i386.c has
>
>{
> /* When not optimize for size, enable vzeroupper optimization for
> TARGET_AVX with -fexpensive-optimizations and split 32-byte
> AVX unaligned load/store. */
This is only for the load, not for deciding whether peeling is
worthw
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
> On 11 December 2012 13:26, Tim Prince wrote:
>> On 12/11/2012 5:14 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/12/12 09:56, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Richard Earnshaw
wrote:
>
> On 11/12/
On 11 December 2012 13:26, Tim Prince wrote:
> On 12/11/2012 5:14 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>
>> On 11/12/12 09:56, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Richard Earnshaw
>>> wrote:
On 11/12/12 09:45, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2
On 12/11/2012 5:14 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 11/12/12 09:56, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Richard Earnshaw
wrote:
On 11/12/12 09:45, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Andi Kleen
wrote:
Jan Hubicka writes:
Note that I think Core has
On 11/12/12 09:56, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 11/12/12 09:45, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
Jan Hubicka writes:
Note that I think Core has similar characteristics - at least for string
op
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 11/12/12 09:45, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>>>
>>> Jan Hubicka writes:
>>>
Note that I think Core has similar characteristics - at least for string
operations
it far
On 11/12/12 09:45, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
Jan Hubicka writes:
Note that I think Core has similar characteristics - at least for string
operations
it fares well with unalignes accesses.
Nehalem and later has very fast unaligned vector load
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Jan Hubicka writes:
>
>> Note that I think Core has similar characteristics - at least for string
>> operations
>> it fares well with unalignes accesses.
>
> Nehalem and later has very fast unaligned vector loads. There's still some
> penalty
Jan Hubicka writes:
> Note that I think Core has similar characteristics - at least for string
> operations
> it fares well with unalignes accesses.
Nehalem and later has very fast unaligned vector loads. There's still some
penalty when they cross cache lines however.
iirc the rule of thumb i
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
> On 10 December 2012 10:02, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>> On 07/12/12 15:13, Christophe Lyon wrote:
Hi,
As ARM supports unaligned vector accesses for almost no pena
>
> I agree that this is a sledgehammer. If aligned/unaligned loads/stores have
> the same cost then reflect that in the vectorized stmt cost hook. If that
> alone does not prevent peeling for alignment to happen then the fix is to
> not consider doing peeling for alignment if aligned/unaligned
On 10 December 2012 10:02, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> On 07/12/12 15:13, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> As ARM supports unaligned vector accesses for almost no penalty, I'd
>>> like to disable loop peeling on ARM targets.
>>>
>>>
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> On 07/12/12 15:13, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> As ARM supports unaligned vector accesses for almost no penalty, I'd
>>> like to disable loop peeling on ARM targets.
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 07/12/12 15:13, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> As ARM supports unaligned vector accesses for almost no penalty, I'd
>> like to disable loop peeling on ARM targets.
>>
>> I have ran benchmarks on cortex-A9 (hard-float) and noticed
On 07/12/12 15:13, Christophe Lyon wrote:
Hi,
As ARM supports unaligned vector accesses for almost no penalty, I'd
like to disable loop peeling on ARM targets.
I have ran benchmarks on cortex-A9 (hard-float) and noticed these
significant improvements:
* 1.5% improvement on a popular embedded be
Hi,
As ARM supports unaligned vector accesses for almost no penalty, I'd
like to disable loop peeling on ARM targets.
I have ran benchmarks on cortex-A9 (hard-float) and noticed these
significant improvements:
* 1.5% improvement on a popular embedded benchmark (with peaks at +20% and +29%)
* 2.1%
19 matches
Mail list logo
