On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 7:11 PM Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 04:22:47PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > As you know I spend quite some time on inliner heuristics but even after
> > the years I have no clear idea how the requirements differs from x86-64
> > to ppc, ar
Hi!
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 04:22:47PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> As you know I spend quite some time on inliner heuristics but even after
> the years I have no clear idea how the requirements differs from x86-64
> to ppc, arm and s390. Clearly compared to x86_64 prologues may get more
> expensi
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 03:30:37PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> > > No, the vast majority of people will *not* (consciously) use them,
> > > because the target defaults will set things to useful values.
> > >
> > > The compiler could use saner "generic" defaults perhaps, but those will
> > > still no
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 2:48 AM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 12:58 AM Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 03:30:37PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> > > > No, the vast majority of people will *not* (consciously) use them,
> > > > because the target defaults w
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 12:58 AM Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 03:30:37PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> > > No, the vast majority of people will *not* (consciously) use them,
> > > because the target defaults will set things to useful values.
> > >
> > > The compiler could use s
On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 03:30:37PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> > No, the vast majority of people will *not* (consciously) use them,
> > because the target defaults will set things to useful values.
> >
> > The compiler could use saner "generic" defaults perhaps, but those will
> > still not be satisfa
On 11/19/20 1:01 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 12:53:27PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 11/19/20 12:42 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 12:13:34PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
On 8/31/20 9:33 PM, Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches wrote:
> guojiufu wr
On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 12:53:27PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/19/20 12:42 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 12:13:34PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> >> On 8/31/20 9:33 PM, Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >>> guojiufu writes:
> When unroll loops, if there are calls in
On 11/19/20 12:42 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 12:13:34PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 8/31/20 9:33 PM, Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>> guojiufu writes:
When unroll loops, if there are calls inside the loop, those calls
may raise negative impacts for un
On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 12:13:34PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 8/31/20 9:33 PM, Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > guojiufu writes:
> >> When unroll loops, if there are calls inside the loop, those calls
> >> may raise negative impacts for unrolling. This patch adds a param
> >> param_max_unrol
On 8/31/20 9:33 PM, Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches wrote:
> guojiufu writes:
>
> Hi,
>
> In this patch, the default value of
> param=max-unrolled-average-calls-x1 is '0', which means to unroll
> a loop, there should be no call inside the body. Do I need to set the
> default value to a bigger va
Hi all,
This patch sets the default value to 16 for parameter
max_unrolled_average_calls which could be used to restict calls in loop
when unrolling. This default value(16) is a big number which keeps
current behavior for almost all cases.
Bootstrap and regtest pass on powerpc64le. Is this ok f
guojiufu writes:
Hi,
In this patch, the default value of
param=max-unrolled-average-calls-x1 is '0', which means to unroll
a loop, there should be no call inside the body. Do I need to set the
default value to a bigger value (16?) for later tune? Biger value will
keep the behavior unchange
On 2020-08-24 19:16, Jan Hubicka wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 6:35 AM guojiufu via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> This patch is checking the _average_ number of calls which is the
> summary of call numbers multiply the possibility of the call maybe
> executed. The _average_ number could be a
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 6:35 AM guojiufu via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > When unroll loops, if there are calls inside the loop, those calls
> > may raise negative impacts for unrolling. This patch adds a param
> > param_max_unrolled_calls, and checks if the number of calls inside
>
On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 6:35 AM guojiufu via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> When unroll loops, if there are calls inside the loop, those calls
> may raise negative impacts for unrolling. This patch adds a param
> param_max_unrolled_calls, and checks if the number of calls inside
> the loop bigger
16 matches
Mail list logo