On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Mircea Namolaru <mircea.namol...@inria.fr> wrote: > The close of stage 1 is getting close (very close). Even there is not so much > new code (basically > the new code computes the separation class option for AST build), I am not > sure that the patch > qualify for stage 2. > > There is very nice code generated by unroll-and-jam (stride mining) for small > kernels both for constant > or non-constant bound loops, and is an argument for the new isl based code > generator. Otherwise I'm afraid > that the code generated looks very similar with the cloog generated one, an > inner loop > with bounds of min/max that GCC doesn't further optimize, preventing > perceived advantages of > strip mining (register reuse and scalar reduction, instruction scheduling > etc). > > ok for trunk ?
New optimization flags and new params need documentation in gcc/doc/invoke.texi. The description of the --params suggest they provide fixed values - is there no way to autodetect sensible values with a cost-model? I hardly doubt that you can find two fixed values that apply for a whole program... Richard. > Thanks, Mircea >