On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Jiong Wang jiong.w...@arm.com wrote:
Wilco Dijkstra writes:
Jeff Law wrote:
Can you move pr45685.c into gcc.target/i386?
I know Richi said next stage1, but given this fixes a performance
regression for ARM and it's reverting rather than adding new code, I
Jeff Law wrote:
Can you move pr45685.c into gcc.target/i386?
I know Richi said next stage1, but given this fixes a performance
regression for ARM and it's reverting rather than adding new code, I
think this is OK for the trunk with the testcase moved.
So, OK with the testcase moved into
Wilco Dijkstra writes:
Jeff Law wrote:
Can you move pr45685.c into gcc.target/i386?
I know Richi said next stage1, but given this fixes a performance
regression for ARM and it's reverting rather than adding new code, I
think this is OK for the trunk with the testcase moved.
So, OK with
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
On 03/04/15 09:18, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
Jeff Law wrote:
On 02/26/15 10:30, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
Several GCC versions ago a conditional negate optimization was
introduced as a workaround
for
PR45685. However the branchless
Jeff Law wrote:
On 02/26/15 10:30, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
Several GCC versions ago a conditional negate optimization was introduced
as a workaround
for
PR45685. However the branchless expansion for conditional negate is
extremely inefficient on
most
targets (5 sequentially dependent
On 03/04/15 09:18, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
Jeff Law wrote:
On 02/26/15 10:30, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
Several GCC versions ago a conditional negate optimization was introduced as a
workaround
for
PR45685. However the branchless expansion for conditional negate is extremely
inefficient on
most
Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/26/15 10:30, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
Several GCC versions ago a conditional negate optimization was introduced
as a workaround for
PR45685. However the branchless expansion for conditional
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/26/15 10:30, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
Several GCC versions ago a conditional negate optimization was introduced
as a workaround for
PR45685. However the branchless expansion for conditional negate is
extremely inefficient
Several GCC versions ago a conditional negate optimization was introduced as a
workaround for
PR45685. However the branchless expansion for conditional negate is extremely
inefficient on most
targets (5 sequentially dependent instructions rather than 2 on AArch64). Since
the underlying issue
On 02/26/15 10:30, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
Several GCC versions ago a conditional negate optimization was introduced as a
workaround for
PR45685. However the branchless expansion for conditional negate is extremely
inefficient on most
targets (5 sequentially dependent instructions rather than 2
10 matches
Mail list logo
