On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 07:28:45PM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> On 2014-10-14 4:17 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> >On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 11:02 -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> >>Here is a new rematerialization sub-pass of LRA.
> >
> >When Mike and I build with this patch along with the patch that
>
On 2014-10-14 12:01 PM, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
Vladimir Makarov wrote:
On SPECINT2k performance is ~0.5% worse (5.5% regression on perlbmk), and
SPECFP is ~0.2% faster.
Thanks for reporting this. It is important for me as I have no aarch64
machine for benchmarking.
Perlbmk performance degradat
On 2014-10-14 4:17 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 11:02 -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
Here is a new rematerialization sub-pass of LRA.
When Mike and I build with this patch along with the patch that
enables LRA by default on powerpc64*-linux (attached below), we're
seeing the
On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 11:02 -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> Here is a new rematerialization sub-pass of LRA.
When Mike and I build with this patch along with the patch that
enables LRA by default on powerpc64*-linux (attached below), we're
seeing the following error message. I'm not sure how you
> Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> > Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> > > On SPECINT2k performance is ~0.5% worse (5.5% regression on perlbmk), and
> > > SPECFP is ~0.2% faster.
> > Thanks for reporting this. It is important for me as I have no aarch64
> > machine for benchmarking.
> >
> > Perlbmk performance deg
> Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> > On SPECINT2k performance is ~0.5% worse (5.5% regression on perlbmk), and
> > SPECFP is ~0.2% faster.
> Thanks for reporting this. It is important for me as I have no aarch64
> machine for benchmarking.
>
> Perlbmk performance degradation is too big and I'll definite
On 10/13/2014 12:24 PM, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>> Here is a new rematerialization sub-pass of LRA.
>>
>> I've tested and benchmarked the sub-pass on x86-64 and ARM. The
>> sub-pass permits to generate a smaller code in average on both
>> architecture (although improvement no-significant), adds
> Here is a new rematerialization sub-pass of LRA.
>
> I've tested and benchmarked the sub-pass on x86-64 and ARM. The
> sub-pass permits to generate a smaller code in average on both
> architecture (although improvement no-significant), adds < 0.4%
> additional compilation time in -O2 mode o
I don't see significant performance changes from the patch (with and
without patch enabling ebx) on x86 in 32bits mode.
Thanks,
Evgeny
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 2:31 AM, Sebastian Pop wrote:
> Vladimir Makarov wrote:
>> I've tested and benchmarked the sub-pass on x86-64 and ARM. The
>> sub-pass
Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> I've tested and benchmarked the sub-pass on x86-64 and ARM. The
> sub-pass permits to generate a smaller code in average on both
> architecture (although improvement no-significant), adds < 0.4%
> additional compilation time in -O2 mode of release GCC (according user
>
On 10/10/14 09:02, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
The new LRA rematerialization sub-pass works right before spilling
subpass and tries to rematerialize values of spilled pseudos. To
implement the new sub-pass, some important changes in LRA were done.
First, lra-lives.c updates live info about all re
11 matches
Mail list logo
