PM
> To: 'H.J. Lu'
> Cc: 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org'; 'hubi...@ucw.cz'; 'ubiz...@gmail.com';
> 'hongjiu...@intel.com'; Fang, Changpeng
> Subject: RE: Backport AVX256 load/store split patches to gcc 4.6 for
> performance boost on latest
:03 PM
To: 'H.J. Lu'
Cc: 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org'; 'hubi...@ucw.cz'; 'ubiz...@gmail.com';
'hongjiu...@intel.com'; Fang, Changpeng
Subject: RE: Backport AVX256 load/store split patches to gcc 4.6 for
performance boost on latest AMD/Intel hardware.
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 1:02 AM, Lu, Hongjiu wrote:
>>
>> The patch that disables default setting of unaligned load splitting
>> for bdver1 has been committed
>> to trunk as revision 175230.
>>
>> Here is the patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-
>> 06/msg01518.html.
>>
>> H. J., is there
>
> The patch that disables default setting of unaligned load splitting
> for bdver1 has been committed
> to trunk as revision 175230.
>
> Here is the patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-
> 06/msg01518.html.
>
> H. J., is there anything else that is pending to fix at this moment
> rega
'ubiz...@gmail.com';
'hongjiu...@intel.com'; Fang, Changpeng
Subject: RE: Backport AVX256 load/store split patches to gcc 4.6 for
performance boost on latest AMD/Intel hardware.
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 9:58 AM, wrote:
> > Is it ok to backport patches, with Changel
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 9:58 AM, wrote:
> > Is it ok to backport patches, with Changelogs below, already in trunk
> to gcc
> > 4.6? These patches are for AVX-256bit load store splitting. These
> patches
> > make significant performance difference >=3% to several CPU2006 and
> > Polyhedron bench
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 9:58 AM, wrote:
> Is it ok to backport patches, with Changelogs below, already in trunk to gcc
> 4.6? These patches are for AVX-256bit load store splitting. These patches
> make significant performance difference >=3% to several CPU2006 and
> Polyhedron benchmarks on lates
Is it ok to backport patches, with Changelogs below, already in trunk to gcc
4.6? These patches are for AVX-256bit load store splitting. These patches
make significant performance difference >=3% to several CPU2006 and
Polyhedron benchmarks on latest AMD and Intel hardware. If ok, I will post
backp
