On Tue, 30 Jul 2019, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> Thanks - can you please update changes.html for it in the 9.2 section?
> There seems to be no GCC 9.2 section yet.
I see one now.
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
> Yes. Looks good to me btw.
Same here. (I would have taken Richard's note as
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 11:33 AM Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:09 AM Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > > this patch updates znver2 costs to match reality. In particular we
> > > > re-benchmarked memcpy strategies and it looks that glibc now wins even
> > > > for re
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:09 AM Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > > this patch updates znver2 costs to match reality. In particular we
> > > re-benchmarked memcpy strategies and it looks that glibc now wins even
> > > for relatively small blocks.
> > > Moreover I updated costs of moves to r
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:09 AM Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > this patch updates znver2 costs to match reality. In particular we
> > re-benchmarked memcpy strategies and it looks that glibc now wins even
> > for relatively small blocks.
> > Moreover I updated costs of moves to reflect that zn
> Hi,
> this patch updates znver2 costs to match reality. In particular we
> re-benchmarked memcpy strategies and it looks that glibc now wins even
> for relatively small blocks.
> Moreover I updated costs of moves to reflect that znver2 has 256 vector
> paths and faster multiplication.
>
> Boot
