Re: [PATCH] [i386] Add extra cost for unsigned_load which may have stall forward issue.

On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 5:54 PM Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 3:19 AM liuhongt wrote: > > > > This patch only handle pure-slp for by-value passed parameter which > > has nothing to do with IPA but psABI. For by-reference passed > > parameter IPA is required. >

[PATCH] [i386] Add extra cost for unsigned_load which may have stall forward issue.

This patch only handle pure-slp for by-value passed parameter which has nothing to do with IPA but psABI. For by-reference passed parameter IPA is required. The patch is aggressive in determining STLF failure, any unaligned_load for parm_decl passed by stack is thought to have STLF stall issue. It

[PATCH] [i386] Add extra cost for unsigned_load which may have stall forward issue.

This patch only handle pure-slp for by-value passed parameter which has nothing to do with IPA but psABI. For by-reference passed parameter IPA is required. The patch is aggressive in determining STLF failure, any unaligned_load for parm_decl passed by stack is thought to have STLF stall issue. It

Re: [PATCH] [i386] Add extra cost for unsigned_load which may have stall forward issue.

On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 3:19 AM liuhongt wrote: > > This patch only handle pure-slp for by-value passed parameter which > has nothing to do with IPA but psABI. For by-reference passed > parameter IPA is required. > > The patch is aggressive in determining STLF failure, any > unaligned_load for par

[PATCH] [i386] Add extra cost for unsigned_load which may have stall forward issue.

This patch only handle pure-slp for by-value passed parameter which has nothing to do with IPA but psABI. For by-reference passed parameter IPA is required. The patch is aggressive in determining STLF failure, any unaligned_load for parm_decl passed by stack is thought to have STLF stall issue. It