--- Comment #6 from snakebyte at gmx dot de 2006-09-03 20:53 ---
marked as wontfix since my benchmark is useless
--
snakebyte at gmx dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-03 20:45 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> wow, thats a fast reply. You got a pointer on how to warm the branch
> prediction
> cache or is this all a no-issue an we can mark this as not a bug?
Yes by doing it in a loop.
--
htt
--- Comment #4 from snakebyte at gmx dot de 2006-02-09 14:18 ---
wow, thats a fast reply. You got a pointer on how to warm the branch prediction
cache or is this all a no-issue an we can mark this as not a bug?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26196
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-09 14:18 ---
All you are saving is one or two instructions if val == max, in real life that
is usually no more than 0.1% now if it was really in the hot loop, it might be
1-2% depending on how "hot" the loop really is.
--
h
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-09 14:07 ---
Your benchmark is flawed in many different ways.
First the branch prediction cache is not going to be warm in your benchmark
unlike real code.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26196
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
Priority|P3 |P5
http:
