On 13/11/15 10:13, James Greenhalgh wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> With all the work that has recently gone in to ifcvt, I thought I'd revisit
> the branch cost settings for Cortex-A57. After a run of experiments [1],
> I found {1, 3} to be the sweet spot, giving a small set of performance
> improvements acr
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 11:40:56AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 11:13 AM, James Greenhalgh
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > With all the work that has recently gone in to ifcvt, I thought I'd revisit
> > the branch cost settings for Cortex-A57. After a run of experiments [1],
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 11:13 AM, James Greenhalgh
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> With all the work that has recently gone in to ifcvt, I thought I'd revisit
> the branch cost settings for Cortex-A57. After a run of experiments [1],
> I found {1, 3} to be the sweet spot, giving a small set of performance
> im
Hi,
With all the work that has recently gone in to ifcvt, I thought I'd revisit
the branch cost settings for Cortex-A57. After a run of experiments [1],
I found {1, 3} to be the sweet spot, giving a small set of performance
improvements across some popular benchmarks.
I'd therefore like to propo
