> On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 06:21:53PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > > > This is hardly a new thought, but I believe that for the i386 gcc is > > handicapped by reload. No matter how smart we are before reload, it > > just take one poor decision by reload in an inner loop and we've lost > > all the gains. Reload has enormous complexities which are mostly > > irrelevant for the i386. And I think that the idea of doing register > > allocation separately from spill code generation does not make sense > > on the i386. > > > > Why don't we turn on vectorizer at -O3 or even -O2, depending on > ISA?
I think we want to make more progress on the cost model first, so that we don't greedily vectorize unless we think it's worth while. > I added -ftree-vectorize to BOOT_CFLAGS on x86-64. According to > -ftree-vectorizer-verbose=1, there are 82 loops vectorized in > gcc source. There are no regressions. There are not much changes > in bootstrap time as well as "make check" time. > that's good to know, dorit > > H.J.
