http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50661
--- Comment #15 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-10-11
11:05:02 UTC ---
Andreas, can I have your feedback about this? Is it safe or not to compare s390
pointers with memcmp?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50661
--- Comment #16 from Andreas Krebbel krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-11
11:41:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
Andreas, can I have your feedback about this? Is it safe or not to compare
s390
pointers with memcmp?
On s390 with 31 bit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50661
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50661
Bernd Schmidt bernds at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50661
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|bernds at codesourcery dot |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50661
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50661
--- Comment #20 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-10-11 12:39:23 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Oct 11 12:39:18 2011
New Revision: 179801
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=179801
Log:
2011-10-11 Emil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50661
--- Comment #22 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch
2011-10-11 16:12:18 UTC ---
in reference to jakub comment #8
actually there was this patch proposing a ivdep macro (identical to INTEL's
one!) that never made to mainline
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50661
--- Comment #23 from pcarlini at gmail dot com 2011-10-11 19:01:02 UTC ---
that never made to mainline
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-02/msg01560.html
what about it?
Eh, bisognerebbe ricostruire, ma mi sa che รจ stato proprio nel
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50661
--- Comment #24 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-10-11
19:10:12 UTC ---
:) Sorry about the italian chattering between me and Vincenzo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50661
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-08
07:35:25 UTC ---
Depends if pointer comparison on the architecture is the same as comparing
integer of the same size and if the alignment of the pointer is the same as its
size
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50661
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||krebbel at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50661
Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50661
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-10-08
09:28:10 UTC ---
The analogy with copying and traits is enticing, but before reading Marc's
message, I wondered: for pointers, which kind of improvement are we talking
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50661
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org 2011-10-08
10:59:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
The analogy with copying and traits is enticing, but before reading Marc's
message, I wondered: for pointers, which kind of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50661
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-10-08
11:19:04 UTC ---
I see, in principle 256 bits too at a time, with avx or something, I guess.
That reminds me, i dont's why appropriate command line switches should not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50661
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-08
11:34:51 UTC ---
I guess the problem with autovectorization of loop like:
for (i = 0; i n; i++)
if (array1[i] != array2[i])
break;
return i == n;
is the control
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50661
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50661
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50661
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-08
12:20:34 UTC ---
One possibility would be some fallthru hint to the compiler similar to
__builtin_assume_aligned that would tell the compiler that certain range of
bytes will
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50661
--- Comment #12 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-10-08
12:57:55 UTC ---
Did you recently check even simpler loops, single range, like std::accumulate?
I'm trying to figure out if we can deal in a light way with the simpler
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50661
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-08
13:08:21 UTC ---
So far I've been mostly looking at C loops (e.g. the ones reported by Vincenzo
or derived from those), or, e.g. with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50661
--- Comment #14 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch
2011-10-08 13:48:22 UTC ---
Thanks for adding me in the loop.
I wonder if we can reuse
-funsafe-loop-optimizations
to force loop vectorization.
I know that INTEL has
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50661
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at
24 matches
Mail list logo
