https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118019
--- Comment #15 from Robin Dapp ---
I think it's r15-2820-gab18785840d7b8.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118019
--- Comment #14 from Vineet Gupta ---
(In reply to Robin Dapp from comment #7)
> > The problem is GCC-15 has performance regression compare to GCC-14 on both
> > strict align and we should fix it, we can't specify use no strict align in
> > GCC-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118019
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118019
--- Comment #12 from Robin Dapp ---
Could you please check if the patch helped?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118019
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Robin Dapp :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ce199a952bfef3e27354a4586a17bc55274c1d3c
commit r15-6277-gce199a952bfef3e27354a4586a17bc55274c1d3c
Author: Robin Dapp
Date: Fri De
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118019
--- Comment #10 from Robin Dapp ---
Ah I see - the actual vector code isn't even that bad and the vec_constructs
aren't either. The problem is rather that we have slow unaligned (scalar)
access with the default tune model. Thus we need to load
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118019
--- Comment #9 from Robin Dapp ---
I think I'll post a patch to increase vec_construct costs first. It's just too
cheap right now. That should already help with the default settings.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118019
--- Comment #8 from JuzheZhong ---
(In reply to Robin Dapp from comment #7)
> > The problem is GCC-15 has performance regression compare to GCC-14 on both
> > strict align and we should fix it, we can't specify use no strict align in
> > GCC-15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118019
--- Comment #7 from Robin Dapp ---
> The problem is GCC-15 has performance regression compare to GCC-14 on both
> strict align and we should fix it, we can't specify use no strict align in
> GCC-15 to pretend that we don't have such performance
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118019
--- Comment #6 from JuzheZhong ---
(In reply to Robin Dapp from comment #5)
> According to Li Pan's results this is "just" vector strict align again?
> We should be vectorizing the first loop, in particular after the
> SLP-grouping changes.
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118019
--- Comment #5 from Robin Dapp ---
According to Li Pan's results this is "just" vector strict align again?
We should be vectorizing the first loop, in particular after the SLP-grouping
changes.
I realize it's annoying having to resort to strict
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118019
--- Comment #4 from Li Pan ---
(In reply to Li Pan from comment #3)
>1 │ #include
>2 │
>3 │ #define I_P1 16
>4 │ #define I_P2 1344
>5 │
>6 │ #define HADAMARD4(d0, d1, d2, d3, s0, s1, s2, s3) {\
>7 │
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118019
--- Comment #3 from Li Pan ---
1 │ #include
2 │
3 │ #define I_P1 16
4 │ #define I_P2 1344
5 │
6 │ #define HADAMARD4(d0, d1, d2, d3, s0, s1, s2, s3) {\
7 │ int t0 = s0 + s1;\
8 │ int t1 = s0 - s1;\
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118019
--- Comment #2 from JuzheZhong ---
(In reply to Vineet Gupta from comment #1)
> How exactly are you building it ?
-march=rv64gcv_zvl512b -mabi=lp64d -mrvv-vector-bits=zvl -mrvv-max-lmul=m2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118019
Vineet Gupta changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vineetg at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
15 matches
Mail list logo
