On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Richard Guenther
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Andi Kleen <a...@firstfloor.org> wrote:
>> Igor Zamyatin <izamya...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> Hi All!
>>> It is known that imul placement is rather critical for Atom processors
>>> and changes try to improve imul scheduling for Atom.
>>> This gives +5% performance on several tests from new OA 2.0 testsuite
>>> from EEMBC.
>>> Tested for i386 and x86-64, ok for trunk?
>> Did you measure how much this slows down the compiler when compiling
>> for Atom? The new pass looks rather slow.
> Also please explain why adjusting the automaton for Atom is not a way to
> attack this issue.
If I understand the question correctly - it's a dynamic check and it's
not clear how to describe this adjusting statically in machine
>> a...@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only