On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 11:13:17AM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 10:51:22AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> > On Apr 8, 2007, at 8:51 PM, Zuxy Meng wrote:
> > >Intel's optimization reference manual says that:
> >
> > I wasn't going off the documentation... I'd be more interested in
Zuxy Meng wrote:
"Mike Stump" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
??:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Apr 8, 2007, at 2:37 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
My docs say that "INC/DEC does not change the carry flag".
Personally, I'm having a hard time envisioning how the semantics of the
instruction are relevant
On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 10:51:22AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Apr 8, 2007, at 8:51 PM, Zuxy Meng wrote:
> >Intel's optimization reference manual says that:
>
> I wasn't going off the documentation... I'd be more interested in
> either benchmarks or in recommendations by Intel people that kno
On Apr 8, 2007, at 8:51 PM, Zuxy Meng wrote:
Intel's optimization reference manual says that:
I wasn't going off the documentation... I'd be more interested in
either benchmarks or in recommendations by Intel people that know the
details of the core2 and the performance impact of those det
"Mike Stump" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
??:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Apr 8, 2007, at 2:37 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> My docs say that "INC/DEC does not change the carry flag".
>
> Personally, I'm having a hard time envisioning how the semantics of the
> instruction are relevant at all. This is all abo
Mike Stump wrote:
I was wondering, if:
/* X86_TUNE_USE_INCDEC */
~(m_PENT4 | m_NOCONA | m_CORE2 | m_GENERIC),
is correct. Should it be:
/* X86_TUNE_USE_INCDEC */
~(m_PENT4 | m_NOCONA | m_GENERIC),
?
In the original patch in:
2006-11-18 Vladimir Makarov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mike Stump wrote:
But you have better resources that I, so if you think that C2D should
be left out of X86_TUNE_USE_INCDEC, then the patch is pre-approved
for mainline.
I'm confused again, it isn't that it should be left out, it is that it
should be included. My patch adds inc/dec selection
Mike Stump wrote:
On Apr 8, 2007, at 2:37 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
My docs say that "INC/DEC does not change the carry flag".
Personally, I'm having a hard time envisioning how the semantics of
the instruction are relevant at all. This is all about instructing
tuning, so, semantics cannot m
On Apr 8, 2007, at 2:37 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
My docs say that "INC/DEC does not change the carry flag".
Personally, I'm having a hard time envisioning how the semantics of
the instruction are relevant at all. This is all about instructing
tuning, so, semantics cannot matter, otherwise, i
On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 11:37:43AM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> H. J. Lu wrote:
>
> >>>inc/dec has the same performance as add/sub on Core 2 Duo. But
> >>>inc/dec is shorter.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>What about partial flag register dependency of inc/dec?
> >>
> >
> >There is no partial flag regi
Uros Bizjak wrote:
My docs say that "INC/DEC does not change the carry flag". But you have
better resources that I, so if you think that C2D should be left out of
X86_TUNE_USE_INCDEC, then the patch is pre-approved for mainline.
Absolutely INC/DEC do not change the carry flag, this is an impo
H. J. Lu wrote:
inc/dec has the same performance as add/sub on Core 2 Duo. But
inc/dec is shorter.
What about partial flag register dependency of inc/dec?
There is no partial flag register dependency on inc/dec.
My docs say that "INC/DEC does not change the carry flag". But
On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 11:29:46AM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> Hello!
>
> >> I was wondering, if:
> >>
> >> /* X86_TUNE_USE_INCDEC */
> >> ~(m_PENT4 | m_NOCONA | m_CORE2 | m_GENERIC),
> >>
> >> is correct. Should it be:
> >>
> >> /* X86_TUNE_USE_INCDEC */
> >> ~(m_PENT4 | m_NOCONA | m_
Hello!
> I was wondering, if:
>
> /* X86_TUNE_USE_INCDEC */
> ~(m_PENT4 | m_NOCONA | m_CORE2 | m_GENERIC),
>
> is correct. Should it be:
>
> /* X86_TUNE_USE_INCDEC */
> ~(m_PENT4 | m_NOCONA | m_GENERIC),
>
> ?
inc/dec has the same performance as add/sub on Core 2 Duo. But
inc/de
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 01:27:09PM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> I was wondering, if:
>
> /* X86_TUNE_USE_INCDEC */
> ~(m_PENT4 | m_NOCONA | m_CORE2 | m_GENERIC),
>
> is correct. Should it be:
>
> /* X86_TUNE_USE_INCDEC */
> ~(m_PENT4 | m_NOCONA | m_GENERIC),
>
> ?
inc/dec has the same p
15 matches
Mail list logo
