On 8/30/2021 9:30 PM, Hongtao Liu via Gcc wrote:
On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 11:11 AM Kewen.Lin via Gcc wrote:
on 2021/8/30 下午10:11, Bill Schmidt wrote:
On 8/30/21 8:04 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
There has been a discussion, both off-list and on the gcc-help mailing
list (“Why vectorization did
On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 11:11 AM Kewen.Lin via Gcc wrote:
>
> on 2021/8/30 下午10:11, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> > On 8/30/21 8:04 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> There has been a discussion, both off-list and on the gcc-help mailing
> >> list (“Why vectorization didn't turn on by -O2”, spread across seve
on 2021/8/30 下午10:11, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> On 8/30/21 8:04 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> There has been a discussion, both off-list and on the gcc-help mailing
>> list (“Why vectorization didn't turn on by -O2”, spread across several
>> months), about enabling the auto-vectorizer at -O2, similar to
On 8/30/21 8:04 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
There has been a discussion, both off-list and on the gcc-help mailing
list (“Why vectorization didn't turn on by -O2”, spread across several
months), about enabling the auto-vectorizer at -O2, similar to what
Clang does.
I think the review concluded tha
There has been a discussion, both off-list and on the gcc-help mailing
list (“Why vectorization didn't turn on by -O2”, spread across several
months), about enabling the auto-vectorizer at -O2, similar to what
Clang does.
I think the review concluded that the very cheap cost model should be
used f
Hi!
Ping -- we still need to plug the memory leak; see patch attached, and/or
long discussion here:
On 2021-08-16T14:10:00-0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 8/16/21 6:44 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>> On 2021-08-12T17:15:44-0600, Martin Sebor via Gcc wrote:
>>> On 8/6/21 10:57 AM, Thomas Schwinge w
