On 25/06/15 14:32, Eero Tamminen wrote:
Hi,
On 06/25/2015 03:53 PM, Davin McCall wrote:
On 25/06/15 12:27, Eero Tamminen wrote:
On 06/25/2015 02:48 AM, Davin McCall wrote:
In terms of performance:
(export LIBGL_ALWAYS_SOFTWARE=1; time glmark2)
For Intel driver, INTEL_NO_HW=1 could be used.
(Do other drivers have something similar?)
Unfortunately I do not have an Intel display set up.
Ok, scratch that - I've set up an Intel-based display (Haswell i7-4790K,
GT2). When run as:
INTEL_NO_HW=1 glmark2 --off-screen
The scores I get are:
no-strict-aliasing: 60922
strict-aliasing: 61533
(CPU usage was consistently 100% throughout).
There's really not that much of a difference here. But different
architectures might see different results, and there is a small
reduction in footprint. I personally feel that fixing any aliasing
violations is worth it even without a significant performance
improvement, just because it means the code will actually conform to the
language spec and you don't need to rely on some compiler crutch to make
it work right.
But, to be clear: the patch doesn't remove -fno-strict-aliasing. It just
fixes some strict aliasing violations, which potentially allows
-fno-strict-aliasing to be removed from the build options at some later
point.
Davin
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
