On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 8:10 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
>>> I've checked spec2000 performance.
>>> Only few spec binaries differ. Anyway performance is unchanged.
>>
>>Thanks, that confirms expectations.
>
> Are changes in generated code expected at all?
The change by itself should have no effect
On May 5, 2015 6:16:14 PM GMT+02:00, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Evgeny Stupachenko
>wrote:
>
>> I've checked spec2000 performance.
>> Only few spec binaries differ. Anyway performance is unchanged.
>
>Thanks, that confirms expectations.
Are changes in generated code expe
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Evgeny Stupachenko wrote:
> I've checked spec2000 performance.
> Only few spec binaries differ. Anyway performance is unchanged.
Thanks, that confirms expectations.
Patch committed.
Uros.
Hi HJ,
I've checked spec2000 performance.
Only few spec binaries differ. Anyway performance is unchanged.
Thanks,
Evgeny
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:08 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> Hello!
>>
>> Attached patch switches x86 to TARGET_SUPPORTS_WIDE_INT
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Attached patch switches x86 to TARGET_SUPPORTS_WIDE_INT.
>
> The patch builds on the fact that build requires
> HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT = 64 capable host. Taking this in account,
> noticeable blocks of code can be removed, and all bu
Hello!
Attached patch switches x86 to TARGET_SUPPORTS_WIDE_INT.
The patch builds on the fact that build requires
HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT = 64 capable host. Taking this in account,
noticeable blocks of code can be removed, and all but one
immed_double_const can be removed.
The only wide-int mode t
