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?
___
18 matches
Mail list logo
