On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Jagasia, Harsha wrote:
We would like to propose changing AVX generic mode tuning to generate
128-bit AVX instead of 256-bit AVX.
>>>
>>> You indicate a 3% reduction on bulldozer with avx256.
>>> How does avx128 compare to -mno-avx -msse4.2?
>> Will the nex
>>> We would like to propose changing AVX generic mode tuning to
>>> generate 128-bit AVX instead of 256-bit AVX.
>>
>> You indicate a 3% reduction on bulldozer with avx256.
>> How does avx128 compare to -mno-avx -msse4.2?
> Will the next AMD generation have a useable avx256?
>>
>> I'm not keen on
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Jagasia, Harsha wrote:
>> >> > > We would like to propose changing AVX generic mode tuning to
>> >> generate
>> >> > 128-bit
>> >> > > AVX instead of 256-bit AVX.
>> >> >
>> >> > You indicate a 3% reduction on bulldozer with avx256.
>> >> > How does avx128 compare t
> >> > > We would like to propose changing AVX generic mode tuning to
> >> generate
> >> > 128-bit
> >> > > AVX instead of 256-bit AVX.
> >> >
> >> > You indicate a 3% reduction on bulldozer with avx256.
> >> > How does avx128 compare to -mno-avx -msse4.2?
> >>
> >> We see these % differences going
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Jagasia, Harsha wrote:
>> > > We would like to propose changing AVX generic mode tuning to
>> generate
>> > 128-bit
>> > > AVX instead of 256-bit AVX.
>> >
>> > You indicate a 3% reduction on bulldozer with avx256.
>> > How does avx128 compare to -mno-avx -msse4.2?
> > > We would like to propose changing AVX generic mode tuning to
> generate
> > 128-bit
> > > AVX instead of 256-bit AVX.
> >
> > You indicate a 3% reduction on bulldozer with avx256.
> > How does avx128 compare to -mno-avx -msse4.2?
>
> We see these % differences going from SSE42 to AVX128 to A
> >> We would like to propose changing AVX generic mode tuning to
> generate 128-bit
> >> AVX instead of 256-bit AVX.
> >
> > You indicate a 3% reduction on bulldozer with avx256.
> > How does avx128 compare to -mno-avx -msse4.2?
> > Will the next AMD generation have a useable avx256?
> >
> > I'm n
> On 07/12/2011 02:22 PM, harsha.jaga...@amd.com wrote:
> > We would like to propose changing AVX generic mode tuning to generate
> 128-bit
> > AVX instead of 256-bit AVX.
>
> You indicate a 3% reduction on bulldozer with avx256.
> How does avx128 compare to -mno-avx -msse4.2?
We see these % diff
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:42:41AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> I suppose generic tuning is of less importance for AVX as
> people need to enable that manually anyway (and will possibly
> do so only via means of -march=native).
Yeah, but if somebody does compile with -mavx -mtune=generic,
I'd
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:56 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 07/12/2011 02:22 PM, harsha.jaga...@amd.com wrote:
>> We would like to propose changing AVX generic mode tuning to generate 128-bit
>> AVX instead of 256-bit AVX.
>
> You indicate a 3% reduction on bulldozer with avx256.
> How does av
On 07/12/2011 02:22 PM, harsha.jaga...@amd.com wrote:
> We would like to propose changing AVX generic mode tuning to generate 128-bit
> AVX instead of 256-bit AVX.
You indicate a 3% reduction on bulldozer with avx256.
How does avx128 compare to -mno-avx -msse4.2?
Will the next AMD generation have
We would like to propose changing AVX generic mode tuning to generate 128-bit
AVX instead of 256-bit AVX. As per H.J's suggestion, we have reviewed the
various tuning choices made for generic mode with respect to AMD's upcoming
Bulldozer processor. At this moment, this is the most significant chang
12 matches
Mail list logo
