On 10/23/2010 01:50 AM, Pat Haugen wrote:
On 10/20/2010 7:48 PM, Jie Zhang wrote:
Running CPU2006, with the hack removed I see about a 1% improvement in
specint (10% in 456.hmmer, a couple others in the 3% range, -3%
401.bzip2) and a 1% degradation in specfp (mainly due to a 13%
degradation in 4
On 10/20/2010 7:48 PM, Jie Zhang wrote:
Running CPU2006, with the hack removed I see about a 1% improvement in
specint (10% in 456.hmmer, a couple others in the 3% range, -3%
401.bzip2) and a 1% degradation in specfp (mainly due to a 13%
degradation in 435.gromacs). But 454.calculix also fails fo
On 10/21/2010 04:08 AM, Pat Haugen wrote:
On 10/18/2010 10:33 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 10/18/10 09:22, David Edelsohn wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Nathan
Froyd wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 02:49:21PM +0800, Jie Zhang wrote:
3. The aforementioned rs6000 hack rs6000_issue_rate was ad
On 10/18/2010 10:33 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 10/18/10 09:22, David Edelsohn wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Nathan
Froyd wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 02:49:21PM +0800, Jie Zhang wrote:
3. The aforementioned rs6000 hack rs6000_issue_rate was added by
2003-03-03 David Edelsohn
> [quote]
> Target Hook: int TARGET_SCHED_ISSUE_RATE (void)
> [snip]
> Although the insn scheduler can define itself the possibility of issue
> an insn on the same cycle, the value can serve as an additional
> constraint to issue insns on the same simulated processor cycle
> [snip]
> [/quote]
>
>
On 10/19/2010 10:16 PM, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
On 19.10.2010 17:57, Jie Zhang wrote:
Removing the failing assert fixes the test case. But I wonder why not
just
get max_issue correct. I'm testing the attached patch. IMHO, max_issue
looks confusing.
* The concept of ISSUE POINT has never been
On 10/19/10 6:16 PM, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
...
I agree that ISSUE_POINTS can be removed, as it was not used (maybe
Maxim can comment more on this).
I too agree with removing ISSUE_POINTS, it never found any use.
Regards,
--
Maxim Kuvyrkov
CodeSourcery
ma...@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385
On 19.10.2010 17:57, Jie Zhang wrote:
Removing the failing assert fixes the test case. But I wonder why not just
get max_issue correct. I'm testing the attached patch. IMHO, max_issue
looks confusing.
* The concept of ISSUE POINT has never been used since the code landed in
repository.
* In the
On 10/18/2010 03:41 PM, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
On 18.10.2010 11:31, Jie Zhang wrote:
Hi Andrey,
On 10/18/2010 03:13 PM, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
Hi Jie,
On 18.10.2010 10:49, Jie Zhang wrote:
When this error happens, FENCE_ISSUED_INSNS (fence) is 2 and
issue_rate is
1. PowerPC 8540 is ca
On 10/18/10 09:22, David Edelsohn wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Nathan Froyd wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 02:49:21PM +0800, Jie Zhang wrote:
3. The aforementioned rs6000 hack rs6000_issue_rate was added by
2003-03-03 David Edelsohn
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_mult
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Nathan Froyd wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 02:49:21PM +0800, Jie Zhang wrote:
>> 3. The aforementioned rs6000 hack rs6000_issue_rate was added by
>>
>> 2003-03-03 David Edelsohn
>>
>> * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_multipass_dfa_lookahead): Delete.
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 02:49:21PM +0800, Jie Zhang wrote:
> 3. The aforementioned rs6000 hack rs6000_issue_rate was added by
>
> 2003-03-03 David Edelsohn
>
> * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_multipass_dfa_lookahead): Delete.
> (TARGET_SCHED_FIRST_CYCLE_MULTIPASS_DFA_LOOKAHEAD
On 18.10.2010 11:31, Jie Zhang wrote:
Hi Andrey,
On 10/18/2010 03:13 PM, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
Hi Jie,
On 18.10.2010 10:49, Jie Zhang wrote:
When this error happens, FENCE_ISSUED_INSNS (fence) is 2 and
issue_rate is
1. PowerPC 8540 is capable to issue 2 instructions in one cycle, but
rs6
Hi Andrey,
On 10/18/2010 03:13 PM, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
Hi Jie,
On 18.10.2010 10:49, Jie Zhang wrote:
When this error happens, FENCE_ISSUED_INSNS (fence) is 2 and
issue_rate is
1. PowerPC 8540 is capable to issue 2 instructions in one cycle, but
rs6000_issue_rate lies to scheduler that i
Hi Jie,
On 18.10.2010 10:49, Jie Zhang wrote:
When this error happens, FENCE_ISSUED_INSNS (fence) is 2 and issue_rate is
1. PowerPC 8540 is capable to issue 2 instructions in one cycle, but
rs6000_issue_rate lies to scheduler that it can only issue 1 instruction
before register relocation is do
Hi,
I'm investigating a GCC testsuite FAIL of PowerPC with e500 multilib.
The test is pr42245.c, which sets options to "-O2 -fselective-scheduling
-fsel-sched-pipelining".
$ ./cc1 -quiet pr42245.c -mcpu=8540 -mfloat-gprs=single -O2
-fselective-scheduling
pr42245.c: In function ‘build_DIS_CO
16 matches
Mail list logo