--- Comment #13 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2009-02-03 11:34 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> What if we forbid altogether memory operands and we *synthesize* them with a
> peephole2? Anyway, it seems safe to me to declare this a dup of PR38824?
I think that we will hit PR 19398 then.
--- Comment #12 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-02-03 11:17 ---
What if we forbid altogether memory operands and we *synthesize* them with a
peephole2? Anyway, it seems safe to me to declare this a dup of PR38824?
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #11 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2009-02-03 10:36 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Can you try the patch of PR38824?
I have tried with a similar peephole2 recognizer. The problem is, that there is
no spare "x" register to allocate as a temporary, so peephole2 is ineffective
--- Comment #10 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-02-03 09:47 ---
Can you try the patch of PR38824?
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Stat
--- Comment #9 from tim at klingt dot org 2008-11-17 18:49 ---
i have updated the test program and attached preprocessed sources of gcc 4.3
and 4.4
the loop prefix contains
4.4 (9 invariant loads, one store of a generated constant to the stack):
pxor%xmm5, %xmm5
xorl
--- Comment #8 from tim at klingt dot org 2008-11-17 18:30 ---
Created an attachment (id=16711)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16711&action=view)
16684: compressed preprocessed source, gcc-4.3
--
tim at klingt dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #7 from tim at klingt dot org 2008-11-17 18:19 ---
Created an attachment (id=16710)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16710&action=view)
compressed preprocessed source, gcc-4.4
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38134
--- Comment #6 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2008-11-17 18:11 ---
I think that
addps .LC10(%rip), %xmm0
mulps %xmm1, %xmm0
addps .LC11(%rip), %xmm0
mulps %xmm1, %xmm0
addps .LC12(%rip), %xmm0
mulps %xmm1, %xmm0
addps
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38134
--- Comment #5 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-11-16 00:08 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> anyway, i found, that the preprocessed source generated by gcc-4.3 cannot be
> compiled with gcc-4.4 ... the specific file can be found here
> http://tim.klingt.org/git?p=nova-server.git;a=
--- Comment #4 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-11-16 00:06 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> i tried to run the benchmark with -fno-ira, which turned out to be about 20%
> slower than without the flag.
>
Can you try "-O3 -march=core2 -mtune=generic" and "-O3 -march=core2
-mtune=g
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
GCC target triplet||x86_64-*-*-*
Keywords||missed-o
12 matches
Mail list logo
