Yes the speed up is the same. However I'm testing only x86 performance. Potentially we can somehow hurt ARM or others performance. GCC already has the tuning enabled for rs6000,s390, spu.
Evgeny On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 8:27 PM, Jan Hubicka <hubi...@ucw.cz> wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Evgeny Stupachenko <evstu...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > make check for gcc passed >> > >> > On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Evgeny Stupachenko <evstu...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> >> The results are the same for Silvermont. >> >> There are no significant changes on Haswell. >> >> So I agree with Richard, let's enable this x86 wide. >> >> >> >> Bootstrap/ passed. >> >> Make check in progress. >> >> Is it ok? >> >> >> >> 2014-10-25 Evgeny Stupachenko <evstu...@gmail.com> >> >> * config/i386/i386.c (ix86_option_override_internal): Increase >> >> PARAM_MAX_COMPLETELY_PEELED_INSNS. >> >> Let's wait for Honza's approval ... > > Looking through the emails, it is not clear to me if you re-tested that this > still > makes the intended speedup with the tree-level loop peeling? (comitted > 2014-10-14). > If it still works as intended, I do not think we have any reason to not > change the > default in params.def given that even ARM folks are calling for peeling by > default. > > Honza >> >> Uros.
