Steve Ellcey 于2019年2月16日周六 上午1:53写道：
> On Fri, 2019-02-15 at 17:48 +0800, Jun Ma wrote:
> >
> > ICC is doing much more than GCC in ipo, especially memory layout
> > optimizations. See https://software.intel.com/en-us/node/522667.
> > ICC is more aggressive in array transposition/structure
> Hasn't GNAT sorted Ada elements in records (e.g. structures) by size
> since near its initial addition to GCC in the mid-90s? This results in the
> largest elements up front and minimizes the need for alignment gaps.
No, that's a serious misconception, since one of the features of GNAT is to be
> Hasn't GNAT sorted Ada elements in records (e.g. structures) by size
> since near its initial addition to GCC in the mid-90s?
No, it wasn't done early on and it was never done in that major a way
now. Most reordering (possibly all; I'm not sure) is done between
objects of variable and fixed
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 9:02 AM Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 4:46 AM Hi-Angel wrote:
> >
> > I never could understand, why field reordering was removed from GCC? I
> > mean, I know that it's prohibited in C and C++, but, sure, GCC can
> > detect whether it possibly can
On Fri, 2019-02-15 at 17:48 +0800, Jun Ma wrote:
>
> ICC is doing much more than GCC in ipo, especially memory layout
> optimizations. See https://software.intel.com/en-us/node/522667.
> ICC is more aggressive in array transposition/structure splitting
> /field reordering. However, these
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 4:46 AM Hi-Angel wrote:
>
> I never could understand, why field reordering was removed from GCC? I
> mean, I know that it's prohibited in C and C++, but, sure, GCC can
> detect whether it possibly can influence application behavior, and if
> not, just do the reorder.
>
>
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 1:16 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 02:12:27PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On February 15, 2019 1:45:10 PM GMT+01:00, Hi-Angel
> > wrote:
> > >I never could understand, why field reordering was removed from GCC?
> >
> > The implementation simply
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 02:12:27PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On February 15, 2019 1:45:10 PM GMT+01:00, Hi-Angel
> wrote:
> >I never could understand, why field reordering was removed from GCC?
>
> The implementation simply was seriously broken, bitrotten and unmaintained.
Which of
On February 15, 2019 1:45:10 PM GMT+01:00, Hi-Angel
wrote:
>I never could understand, why field reordering was removed from GCC?
The implementation simply was seriously broken, bitrotten and unmaintained.
Richard
I
>mean, I know that it's prohibited in C and C++, but, sure, GCC can
>detect
I never could understand, why field reordering was removed from GCC? I
mean, I know that it's prohibited in C and C++, but, sure, GCC can
detect whether it possibly can influence application behavior, and if
not, just do the reorder.
The veto is important to C/C++ as programming languages, but
Bin.Cheng 于2019年2月15日周五 下午5:12写道：
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 3:30 AM Steve Ellcey wrote:
> >
> > I have a question about SPEC CPU 2017 and what GCC can and cannot do
> > with -flto. As part of some SPEC analysis I am doing I found that with
> > -Ofast, ICC and GCC were not that far apart
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 3:30 AM Steve Ellcey wrote:
>
> I have a question about SPEC CPU 2017 and what GCC can and cannot do
> with -flto. As part of some SPEC analysis I am doing I found that with
> -Ofast, ICC and GCC were not that far apart (especially spec int rate,
> spec fp rate was a
I have a question about SPEC CPU 2017 and what GCC can and cannot do
with -flto. As part of some SPEC analysis I am doing I found that with
-Ofast, ICC and GCC were not that far apart (especially spec int rate,
spec fp rate was a slightly larger difference).
But when I added -ipo to the ICC
13 matches
Mail list logo
