Ulrich Weigand uweig...@de.ibm.com writes:
Richard Sandiford wrote:
Vladimir Makarov vmaka...@redhat.com writes:
Taking your results for S390 and ARM with Neon into account, I guess it
should be included and probably made by default for these 2 targets (for
sure for s390).
OK, thanks
Richard Sandiford wrote:
Vladimir Makarov vmaka...@redhat.com writes:
Taking your results for S390 and ARM with Neon into account, I guess it
should be included and probably made by default for these 2 targets (for
sure for s390).
OK, thanks to both of you.
Ulrich and Andreas: would
Vladimir Makarov vmaka...@redhat.com writes:
On 04/23/2012 11:42 AM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
Vladimir Makarov wrote:
I have a mixed feeling with the patch. I've tried it on SPEC2000 on
x86/x86-64 and ARM. Model algorithm generates bigger code up to 3.5%
(SPECFP on x86), 2% (SPECFP on 86-64),
Vladimir Makarov wrote:
I have a mixed feeling with the patch. I've tried it on SPEC2000 on
x86/x86-64 and ARM. Model algorithm generates bigger code up to 3.5%
(SPECFP on x86), 2% (SPECFP on 86-64), and 0.23% (SPECFP on ARM) in
comparison with the current algorithm. It is slower too.
On 04/23/2012 11:42 AM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
Vladimir Makarov wrote:
I have a mixed feeling with the patch. I've tried it on SPEC2000 on
x86/x86-64 and ARM. Model algorithm generates bigger code up to 3.5%
(SPECFP on x86), 2% (SPECFP on 86-64), and 0.23% (SPECFP on ARM) in
comparison with the
Vladimir Makarov vmaka...@redhat.com writes:
On 04/10/2012 09:35 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Hi Vlad,
Back in Decemember, when we were still very much in stage 3, I sent
an RFC about an alternative implementation of -fsched-pressure.
Just wanted to send a reminder now that we're in the
On 04/17/2012 04:29 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Vladimir Makarovvmaka...@redhat.com writes:
On the other hand, I don't think that 1st insn scheduling will be ever
used for x86. And although the SPECFP2000 rate is the same on x86-64 I
saw that some SPECFP2000 tests benefit from your algorithm
On 04/10/2012 09:35 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Hi Vlad,
Back in Decemember, when we were still very much in stage 3, I sent
an RFC about an alternative implementation of -fsched-pressure.
Just wanted to send a reminder now that we're in the proper stage:
The condition I orignally set myself was that this patch should only
go in if it becomes the default on at least one architecture,
specifically ARM. Ulrich tells me that Linaro have now made it
the default for ARM in their GCC 4.7 release, so hopefully Ramana
would be OK with doing the same
On 04/10/2012 09:35 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Hi Vlad,
Back in Decemember, when we were still very much in stage 3, I sent
an RFC about an alternative implementation of -fsched-pressure.
Just wanted to send a reminder now that we're in the proper stage:
10 matches
Mail list logo
