On 03/03/16 00:44, kugan wrote:
>
>
>>> I have just switched to gcc 5.2 from 4.9.2 and the code quality does
>>> seem to have improved significantly. For example, it now seems much
>>> better at using ldp/stp and it seems to has stopped gratuitous use of
>>> the SIMD registers.
>>>
>>> However, I s
I have just switched to gcc 5.2 from 4.9.2 and the code quality does seem to
have improved significantly. For example, it now seems much better at using
ldp/stp and it seems to has stopped gratuitous use of the SIMD registers.
However, I still have a few whinges:-)
See attached copy.c / cop
On 2 March 2016 at 14:36, Edward Nevill wrote:
> It is doing cmp x2, 8 then a few instructions later, without modifying
> x2/w2 and without any intervening branch destinations it does cmp w2, 8.
> I assert the 2nd cmp w2, 8 and bls are redundant, because we know it is
> (unsigned) <= 8 already.
O
> On Mar 2, 2016, at 4:05 PM, Christophe Lyon
> wrote:
>
> On 2 March 2016 at 12:35, Edward Nevill wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have just switched to gcc 5.2 from 4.9.2 and the code quality does seem to
>> have improved significantly. For example, it now seems much better at using
>> ldp/stp and it
On 02/03/16 11:35, Edward Nevill wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have just switched to gcc 5.2 from 4.9.2 and the code quality does seem to
> have improved significantly. For example, it now seems much better at using
> ldp/stp and it seems to has stopped gratuitous use of the SIMD registers.
>
> However, I s
On 02/03/16 14:25, Renato Golin wrote:
> On 2 March 2016 at 11:35, Edward Nevill wrote:
>> cmp x2, 8 <<< (1)
>> (1) If count as a 64 bit unsigned is <= 8 then it is probably still <= 8 as
>> a 32 bit unsigned.
>
> You mean to use "cmp w2, 8" instead? Is there any difference?
On Wed, 2016-03-02 at 14:25 +, Renato Golin wrote:
> On 2 March 2016 at 11:35, Edward Nevill wrote:
> > cmp x2, 8 <<< (1)
> > (1) If count as a 64 bit unsigned is <= 8 then it is probably still <= 8 as
> > a 32 bit unsigned.
>
> You mean to use "cmp w2, 8" instead? Is t
On 2 March 2016 at 11:35, Edward Nevill wrote:
> cmp x2, 8 <<< (1)
> (1) If count as a 64 bit unsigned is <= 8 then it is probably still <= 8 as a
> 32 bit unsigned.
You mean to use "cmp w2, 8" instead? Is there any difference?
> (2) Nowhere in the function does it store
On 2 March 2016 at 12:35, Edward Nevill wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have just switched to gcc 5.2 from 4.9.2 and the code quality does seem to
> have improved significantly. For example, it now seems much better at using
> ldp/stp and it seems to has stopped gratuitous use of the SIMD registers.
Hi Ed,
