On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Timothy Gu wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 4:47 AM Ganesh Ajjanagadde > - GCC vectorization
> slows down compilation A LOT in all versions. The newer
>
>> > the worse.
>>
>> A ~ 20% slowdown on a build for a ~ 20% improvement in an overall FATE
>> bench - sounds li
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 4:47 AM Ganesh Ajjanagadde > - GCC vectorization
slows down compilation A LOT in all versions. The newer
> > the worse.
>
> A ~ 20% slowdown on a build for a ~ 20% improvement in an overall FATE
> bench - sounds like a win to me especially with ccache.
Of course, but unfor
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Clément Bœsch wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 08:41:33AM -0500, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Clément Bœsch wrote:
>> > On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 07:20:39AM -0500, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> This is an opinion, so I wil
On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 08:41:33AM -0500, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Clément Bœsch wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 07:20:39AM -0500, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> > [...]
> >> This is an opinion, so I will state mine here: if you are developing
> >> use ccache + G
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Clément Bœsch wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 07:20:39AM -0500, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> [...]
>> This is an opinion, so I will state mine here: if you are developing
>> use ccache + GCC > ccache + clang > clang = gcc. Reason for the first
>> is due to the terri
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 2:17 AM, Clément Bœsch wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 10:10:33PM -0500, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagad
On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 07:20:39AM -0500, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
[...]
> This is an opinion, so I will state mine here: if you are developing
> use ccache + GCC > ccache + clang > clang = gcc. Reason for the first
> is due to the terrible interaction ccache has with clang.
I'm curious; what are
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 2:17 AM, Clément Bœsch wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 10:10:33PM -0500, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
>>> > On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 6:49 PM, Ganesh Ajjan
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 12:45 AM, Timothy Gu wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 8:23 PM Rostislav Pehlivanov
> wrote:
>
>> >if one removes the crippling
>> >-fno-tree-vectorize
>> Yes, I think a config option to turn this flag on (like the unsafe
>> bitstream reader) would be good. Defaulting to off
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 2:17 AM, Clément Bœsch wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 10:10:33PM -0500, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
>> > On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 6:49 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 6:37 PM, wm4
On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 10:10:33PM -0500, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 6:49 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> >> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 6:37 PM, wm4 wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 14:49:54 -0500
> >>> Ganesh Ajja
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 8:23 PM Rostislav Pehlivanov
wrote:
> >if one removes the crippling
> >-fno-tree-vectorize
> Yes, I think a config option to turn this flag on (like the unsafe
> bitstream reader) would be good. Defaulting to off by default if it doesn't
> break anything for at least a few
>if one removes the crippling
>-fno-tree-vectorize
Yes, I think a config option to turn this flag on (like the unsafe
bitstream reader) would be good. Defaulting to off by default if it doesn't
break anything for at least a few people (and compilers) who test it. It's
not a big performance impact b
On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 09:32:13PM -0500, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 6:49 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 6:37 PM, wm4 wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 14:49:54 -0500
> >> Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> >>
> >>> This improves accuracy for the bessel f
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 6:49 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 6:37 PM, wm4 wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 14:49:54 -0500
>>> Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
>>>
This improves accuracy for the bessel function, and t
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 6:49 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 6:37 PM, wm4 wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 14:49:54 -0500
>> Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
>>
>>> This improves accuracy for the bessel function, and this in turn should
>>> improve the quality of the Kaiser window.
>
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 6:37 PM, wm4 wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 14:49:54 -0500
> Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
>
>> This improves accuracy for the bessel function, and this in turn should
>> improve the quality of the Kaiser window.
>
>
> "Should"? Does it or does it not? If you don't know, why the
On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 14:49:54 -0500
Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> This improves accuracy for the bessel function, and this in turn should
> improve the quality of the Kaiser window.
"Should"? Does it or does it not? If you don't know, why the patch?
___
This improves accuracy for the bessel function, and this in turn should
improve the quality of the Kaiser window.
The algorithm is taken from the Boost project, who have done a detailed
investigation of the accuracy of their method, as compared with e.g the
GNU Scientific Library (GSL):
http://www.
19 matches
Mail list logo
