On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Jiong Wang wrote:
>
> Wilco Dijkstra writes:
>
>>> Jeff Law wrote:
>>> Can you move pr45685.c into gcc.target/i386?
>>>
>>> I know Richi said next stage1, but given this fixes a performance
>>> regression for ARM and it's reverting rather than adding new code, I
>>>
Wilco Dijkstra writes:
>> Jeff Law wrote:
>> Can you move pr45685.c into gcc.target/i386?
>>
>> I know Richi said next stage1, but given this fixes a performance
>> regression for ARM and it's reverting rather than adding new code, I
>> think this is OK for the trunk with the testcase moved.
>>
> Jeff Law wrote:
> Can you move pr45685.c into gcc.target/i386?
>
> I know Richi said next stage1, but given this fixes a performance
> regression for ARM and it's reverting rather than adding new code, I
> think this is OK for the trunk with the testcase moved.
>
> So, OK with the testcase move
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 03/04/15 09:18, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>>>
>>> Jeff Law wrote:
>>> On 02/26/15 10:30, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
Several GCC versions ago a conditional negate optimization was
introduced as a workaround
>>>
>>> for
PR45685. Ho
On 03/04/15 09:18, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
Jeff Law wrote:
On 02/26/15 10:30, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
Several GCC versions ago a conditional negate optimization was introduced as a
workaround
for
PR45685. However the branchless expansion for conditional negate is extremely
inefficient on
most
> Jeff Law wrote:
> On 02/26/15 10:30, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> > Several GCC versions ago a conditional negate optimization was introduced
> > as a workaround
> for
> > PR45685. However the branchless expansion for conditional negate is
> > extremely inefficient on
> most
> > targets (5 sequentia
> Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> > On 02/26/15 10:30, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> >>
> >> Several GCC versions ago a conditional negate optimization was introduced
> >> as a workaround for
> >> PR45685. However the branchless expansion for conditional nega
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 02/26/15 10:30, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>>
>> Several GCC versions ago a conditional negate optimization was introduced
>> as a workaround for
>> PR45685. However the branchless expansion for conditional negate is
>> extremely inefficient on mos
On 02/26/15 10:30, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
Several GCC versions ago a conditional negate optimization was introduced as a
workaround for
PR45685. However the branchless expansion for conditional negate is extremely
inefficient on most
targets (5 sequentially dependent instructions rather than 2 o
Several GCC versions ago a conditional negate optimization was introduced as a
workaround for
PR45685. However the branchless expansion for conditional negate is extremely
inefficient on most
targets (5 sequentially dependent instructions rather than 2 on AArch64). Since
the underlying issue
has
10 matches
Mail list logo
