Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 11:09:29AM -0500, Vladimir N. Makarov wrote:
> > Yes, that is the current state of 4.1 and 4.2 branches (as of
> > yesterday). I don't think we will see a change with the reverted
> > alaising patches for itanium because conservativ
Joe Buck wrote:
Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but often conservative aliasing
results in reading lots of extra data from memory. How can speculation
compensate for that? It seems that the best you can do is reduce the
penalty, if you can do something in parallel with the extra I/O.
Y
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 11:09:29AM -0500, Vladimir N. Makarov wrote:
> Yes, that is the current state of 4.1 and 4.2 branches (as of
> yesterday). I don't think we will see a change with the reverted
> alaising patches for itanium because conservative aliasing most probably
> will be compensate
Mark Mitchell wrote:
Vladimir N. Makarov wrote:
Here is the comparison of 4.1 branch and 4.2 branch. In brief, 4.2
has 0.47% better performance in SPECInt2000 and 2.2% better
performance in SPECFP2000.
Thanks!
I assume that is with the aliasing safety patches turned on, i.e.,
curren
Vladimir N. Makarov wrote:
> Here is the comparison of 4.1 branch and 4.2 branch. In brief, 4.2
> has 0.47% better performance in SPECInt2000 and 2.2% better
> performance in SPECFP2000.
Thanks!
I assume that is with the aliasing safety patches turned on, i.e.,
current state of the 4.2 branch?
