On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> As written in the PR, I've been looking why is llvm 3.[34] so much faster
> on Scimark2 SOR benchmark and the reason is that it's predictive commoning
> or whatever it uses doesn't give up on the inner loop, while our predcom
> unnec
On 12/31/13 12:04, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
As written in the PR, I've been looking why is llvm 3.[34] so much faster
on Scimark2 SOR benchmark and the reason is that it's predictive commoning
or whatever it uses doesn't give up on the inner loop, while our predcom
unnecessarily gives up, becaus
On 1/1/2014, 12:50 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 03:22:07PM -0500, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
Scimark2 is always used by Phoronix to show how bad GCC in
comparison with LLVM. It is understandable. For some reasons
phoronix is very biased to LLVM and, I'd say, a marketing machine
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 03:22:07PM -0500, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> Scimark2 is always used by Phoronix to show how bad GCC in
> comparison with LLVM. It is understandable. For some reasons
> phoronix is very biased to LLVM and, I'd say, a marketing machine
> for LLVM.
>
> They use very small sel
On 12/31/2013, 2:04 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
As written in the PR, I've been looking why is llvm 3.[34] so much faster
on Scimark2 SOR benchmark and the reason is that it's predictive commoning
or whatever it uses doesn't give up on the inner loop, while our predcom
unnecessarily gives up, b
Hi!
As written in the PR, I've been looking why is llvm 3.[34] so much faster
on Scimark2 SOR benchmark and the reason is that it's predictive commoning
or whatever it uses doesn't give up on the inner loop, while our predcom
unnecessarily gives up, because there are reads that could alias the wri
