https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82418
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82418
--- Comment #8 from Alexander Monakov ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Fri Aug 10 10:13:37 2018
New Revision: 263467
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263467=gcc=rev
Log:
i386: do not use SImode mul-highpart on 64-bit (PR 82418)
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82418
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #6)
> +;; Widest single word integer modes.
> +(define_mode_iterator SWI48W [(SI "!TARGET_64BIT")
> + (DI "TARGET_64BIT")])
Please use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82418
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uros at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82418
Dennis Lubert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||plasmahh at gmx dot net
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82418
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82418
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #3)
> it's likely that your test measured something else,
You are right, my test was bogus and clang's version is faster.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82418
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82418
--- Comment #2 from Antony Polukhin ---
I've checked the instructions cost according to the "4. Instruction tables" by
By Agner Fog. Technical University of Denmark.
For skylake:
; recip throughpLatency Ports
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82418
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
If I time it, gcc's code is several times faster than clang's on skylake. Why
is clang's version supposed to be better?
10 matches
Mail list logo
