>>> We would like to propose changing AVX generic mode tuning to
>>> generate 128-bit AVX instead of 256-bit AVX.
>>
>> You indicate a 3% reduction on bulldozer with avx256.
>> How does avx128 compare to -mno-avx -msse4.2?
> Will the next AMD generation have a useable avx256?
>>
>> I'm not keen on
> >> > > We would like to propose changing AVX generic mode tuning to
> >> generate
> >> > 128-bit
> >> > > AVX instead of 256-bit AVX.
> >> >
> >> > You indicate a 3% reduction on bulldozer with avx256.
> >> > How does avx128 compare to -mno-avx -msse4.2?
> >>
> >> We see these % differences going
> > > We would like to propose changing AVX generic mode tuning to
> generate
> > 128-bit
> > > AVX instead of 256-bit AVX.
> >
> > You indicate a 3% reduction on bulldozer with avx256.
> > How does avx128 compare to -mno-avx -msse4.2?
>
> We see these % differences going from SSE42 to AVX128 to A
> >> We would like to propose changing AVX generic mode tuning to
> generate 128-bit
> >> AVX instead of 256-bit AVX.
> >
> > You indicate a 3% reduction on bulldozer with avx256.
> > How does avx128 compare to -mno-avx -msse4.2?
> > Will the next AMD generation have a useable avx256?
> >
> > I'm n
> On 07/12/2011 02:22 PM, harsha.jaga...@amd.com wrote:
> > We would like to propose changing AVX generic mode tuning to generate
> 128-bit
> > AVX instead of 256-bit AVX.
>
> You indicate a 3% reduction on bulldozer with avx256.
> How does avx128 compare to -mno-avx -msse4.2?
We see these % diff
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 9:58 AM, wrote:
> > Is it ok to backport patches, with Changelogs below, already in trunk
> to gcc
> > 4.6? These patches are for AVX-256bit load store splitting. These
> patches
> > make significant performance difference >=3% to several CPU2006 and
> > Polyhedron bench
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; H.J. Lu; Jagasia, Harsha
> Subject: Re: [PATCH, i386] PR 48743 Correctly detect AMD K6-2+ and K6-
> 3+
>
> 2011/5/18 Uros Bizjak :
> > Hello!
> >
> >> 2011-05-16 Zuxy Meng
> >
> >> PR i386/48743
> >>
