https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78762
Venkataramanan <venkataramanan.kumar at amd dot com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |venkataramanan.kumar at amd dot co | |m --- Comment #8 from Venkataramanan <venkataramanan.kumar at amd dot com> --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7) > Actually, it seems the unaligned load splitting is there because of > sandybridge? > DEF_TUNE (X86_TUNE_AVX256_UNALIGNED_LOAD_OPTIMAL, > "256_unaligned_load_optimal", > ~(m_NEHALEM | m_SANDYBRIDGE | m_GENERIC)) > Though the Nehalem in there is weird, there weren't any Nehalem CPUs with > AVX support, right? And if it is just something for Sandybridge which > doesn't support AVX2, then either for AVX2 we should use a different tuning > parameter (which might be set for all CPUs?), or do the ISA specific generic > tuning. My understanding is that avx256 unaligned loads are good for all the processors other than NEHALEM, SANDYBRIDGE and GENERIC. In other words splitting is set for only these targets. Before I can comment on whether AMD targets needs this tuning (or) what is the behavior we want to see for generic, allow me to benchmark and get back.