On 11/3/22 06:38, Robin Dapp wrote:
Should we go ahead with this, i.e. push the change and wait for fallout?
I guess we're still early enough in the cycle for that. There are no
regressions anymore on s390, Power9, x86 and aarch64 (at least on the
farm machines I checked).
That would be my
Should we go ahead with this, i.e. push the change and wait for fallout?
I guess we're still early enough in the cycle for that. There are no
regressions anymore on s390, Power9, x86 and aarch64 (at least on the
farm machines I checked).
Regards
Robin
> I opened:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107061
The online docs for encodekey256 also say
XMM4 through XMM6 are reserved for future usages and software should not
rely upon them being zeroed.
I believe we also zero there.
> This sounds like an issue.
So with your patch for
On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 10:46 AM Robin Dapp via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> > I did bootstrapping and ran the testsuite on x86(-64), aarch64, Power9
> > and s390. Everything looks good except two additional fails on x86
> > where code actually looks worse.
> >
> > gcc.target/i386/keylocker-encodekey12
> I did bootstrapping and ran the testsuite on x86(-64), aarch64, Power9
> and s390. Everything looks good except two additional fails on x86
> where code actually looks worse.
>
> gcc.target/i386/keylocker-encodekey128.c
>
> 17c17,18
> < movaps %xmm4, k2(%rip)
> ---
>> pxor%xmm
> Which is this from the mail archives:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/1998-June/000308.html
>
> I would tend to agree that for equal cost that the constant would be
> preferred since that should be better from a scheduling/dependency
> standpoint. So it seems to me we can driv
On 9/7/2022 9:33 AM, Robin Dapp wrote:
Did you did any archeology into this code to see if there was any
history that might shed light on why it doesn't just using the costing
models?
This one was buried under some dust :)
commit 0254c56158b0533600ba9036258c11d377d46adf
Author: John Carr
Da
> Did you did any archeology into this code to see if there was any
> history that might shed light on why it doesn't just using the costing
> models?
This one was buried under some dust :)
commit 0254c56158b0533600ba9036258c11d377d46adf
Author: John Carr
Date: Wed Jun 10 06:00:50 1998 +
On 9/7/2022 8:40 AM, Robin Dapp via Gcc-patches wrote:
Hi,
I recently looked into a sequence like
vzero %v0
vlr %v2, %v0
vlr %v3, %v0.
Ideally we would like to use vzero for all of these sets in order to not
create dependencies.
For some instances of this problem I found the offe
Hi,
I recently looked into a sequence like
vzero %v0
vlr %v2, %v0
vlr %v3, %v0.
Ideally we would like to use vzero for all of these sets in order to not
create dependencies.
For some instances of this problem I found the offending snippet to be
the postreload cse pass. If there is a non
10 matches
Mail list logo
