On Wed, Oct 2, 2024 at 4:41 PM Jeff Law <jeffreya...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 10/2/24 4:39 PM, Andrew Waterman wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 2, 2024 at 5:56 AM Jeff Law <jeffreya...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On 9/5/24 12:52 PM, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: > >>> We have cheap logical ops, so let's just move this back to the default > >>> to take advantage of the standard branch/op hueristics. > >>> > >>> gcc/ChangeLog: > >>> > >>> PR target/116615 > >>> * config/riscv/riscv.h (LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT): Remove. > >> So on the BPI this is a pretty clear win. Not surprisingly perlbench > >> and gcc are the big winners. It somewhat surprisingly regresses x264, > >> deepsjeng & leela, but the magnitudes are smaller. The net from a cycle > >> perspective is 2.4%. Every benchmark looks better from a branch count > >> perspective. > >> > >> So in my mind it's just a matter of fixing any testsuite fallout (I > >> would expect some) and this is OK. > > > > Jeff, were you able to measure the change in static code size, too? > > These results are very encouraging, but I'd like to make sure we don't > > need to retain the current behavior when optimizing for size. > Codesize is ever so slightly worse. As in less than .1%. Not worth it > in my mind to do something different in that range.
Thanks. Agreed. > > Jeff
