On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Igor Zamyatin izamya...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Igor Zamyatin
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Andi Kleen a...@firstfloor.org wrote:
Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com writes:
5% is not moderate. Your patch does enable unrolling at -O2 but not -O3,
why? Why do you disable register renaming? check_imull requires a function
comment.
This
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Igor Zamyatin izamya...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All!
Here is a patch that enables unroll at O2 for Atom.
This gives good performance boost on EEMBC 2.0 (~+8% in Geomean for 32
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Igor Zamyatin izamya...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Igor Zamyatin izamya...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All!
Here is a patch that enables unroll at O2 for Atom.
So would need much more benchmarking on macro workloads first at least.
Like what, for example? I believe in this case everything also
strongly depends on test usage model (e.g. it usually compiled with Os
not O2) and, let's say, internal test structure - whether there are
hot loops that
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Igor Zamyatin izamya...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All!
Here is a patch that enables unroll at O2 for Atom.
This gives good performance boost on EEMBC 2.0 (~+8% in Geomean for 32
bits) with quite moderate code size increase (~5% for EEMBC2.0, 32
bits).
5% is not
Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com writes:
5% is not moderate. Your patch does enable unrolling at -O2 but not -O3,
why? Why do you disable register renaming? check_imull requires a function
comment.
This completely looks like a hack for EEMBC2.0, so it's definitely not ok.
-O2
