"Ulrich Weigand" writes:
> Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Vladimir Makarov writes:
>> > Taking your results for S390 and ARM with Neon into account, I guess it
>> > should be included and probably made by default for these 2 targets (for
>> > sure for s390).
>>
>> OK, thanks to both of you.
>>
>
Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Vladimir Makarov writes:
> > Taking your results for S390 and ARM with Neon into account, I guess it
> > should be included and probably made by default for these 2 targets (for
> > sure for s390).
>
> OK, thanks to both of you.
>
> Ulrich and Andreas: would you be h
Vladimir Makarov writes:
> On 04/23/2012 11:42 AM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
>> Vladimir Makarov wrote:
>>
>>> I have a mixed feeling with the patch. I've tried it on SPEC2000 on
>>> x86/x86-64 and ARM. Model algorithm generates bigger code up to 3.5%
>>> (SPECFP on x86), 2% (SPECFP on 86-64), and 0.2
On 04/23/2012 11:42 AM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
Vladimir Makarov wrote:
I have a mixed feeling with the patch. I've tried it on SPEC2000 on
x86/x86-64 and ARM. Model algorithm generates bigger code up to 3.5%
(SPECFP on x86), 2% (SPECFP on 86-64), and 0.23% (SPECFP on ARM) in
comparison with the
Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> I have a mixed feeling with the patch. I've tried it on SPEC2000 on
> x86/x86-64 and ARM. Model algorithm generates bigger code up to 3.5%
> (SPECFP on x86), 2% (SPECFP on 86-64), and 0.23% (SPECFP on ARM) in
> comparison with the current algorithm. It is slower too. Alth
On 04/17/2012 04:29 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Vladimir Makarov writes:
On the other hand, I don't think that 1st insn scheduling will be ever
used for x86. And although the SPECFP2000 rate is the same on x86-64 I
saw that some SPECFP2000 tests benefit from your algorithm on x86-64
(one amaz
Vladimir Makarov writes:
> On 04/10/2012 09:35 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Hi Vlad,
>>
>> Back in Decemember, when we were still very much in stage 3, I sent
>> an RFC about an alternative implementation of -fsched-pressure.
>> Just wanted to send a reminder now that we're in the proper stage:
On 04/10/2012 09:35 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Hi Vlad,
Back in Decemember, when we were still very much in stage 3, I sent
an RFC about an alternative implementation of -fsched-pressure.
Just wanted to send a reminder now that we're in the proper stage:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011
On 04/10/2012 09:35 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Hi Vlad,
Back in Decemember, when we were still very much in stage 3, I sent
an RFC about an alternative implementation of -fsched-pressure.
Just wanted to send a reminder now that we're in the proper stage:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011
> The condition I orignally set myself was that this patch should only
> go in if it becomes the default on at least one architecture,
> specifically ARM. Ulrich tells me that Linaro have now made it
> the default for ARM in their GCC 4.7 release, so hopefully Ramana
> would be OK with doing the s
Hi Vlad,
Back in Decemember, when we were still very much in stage 3, I sent
an RFC about an alternative implementation of -fsched-pressure.
Just wanted to send a reminder now that we're in the proper stage:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg01684.html
Ulrich has benchmarked it on ARM
11 matches
Mail list logo
