ry to measure the dynamics of performance changes of
GCC and LLVM (i. e. 2 comparative graphs from version to version) - for
arm architecture?
Best regards,
Ilya Palachev
Dear Evgeniya,
Maybe missed optimizations in vectorizer will be interesting to you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
It has a lot of open tasks that can highly influence the performance,
but many of them have not been solved for long years.
For now gcc vectorizer works in some
rrent status of ILP32 support implementation in GCC?
3. Did anybody try to benchmark AArch64 binaries ILP32 vs. LP64 builds?
Is it possible to compare the performance of these modes?
Best regards,
Ilya Palachev
iled pipeline descriptions for SIMD
instructions for cortex-a53?
How can it influence the performance of the generated code?
--
Best regards,
Ilya Palachev
Hi,
Here are some questions about AutoFDO.
On 08.05.2014 02:55, Dehao Chen wrote:
We have open-sourced AutoFDO profile toolchain in:
https://github.com/google/autofdo
For GCC developers, the most important tool is create_gcov, which
converts sampling based profile to GCC-readable profile. Ple
resulting gcov data is the same (1600 bytes) for different
levels of debug information (-g0, -g1, -g2) and for different input
sources files.
What am I doing wrong?
--
Best regards,
Ilya Palachev
#define DX (480*4)
#define DY (640*4)
int* src = new int[DX*DY];
int* dst = new int[DX*DY];
int
ping?
On 15.04.2015 10:41, Ilya Palachev wrote:
Hi,
One more question.
Does anybody know with which options should the perf be executed so that
to collect appropriate data for the autofdo converter?
I obtain the same data for different programs, and it seems to be empty
(1600 Bytes).
They
er adding option
"-fauto-profile=file.gcov" or "-fprofile-use=file.gcov" to the list of
compiler options.
The program becomes 10% slower than before.
Can you explain that? Maybe I should configure perf so that it will be
able to collect events BR_INST_RETIRED:TAKEN ? How can it be done?
--
Best regards,
Ilya Palachev
Hi,
On 21.04.2015 20:25, Dehao Chen wrote:
OTOH, the most important patch (insn-level discriminator support) is
not in yet. Cary has just retired. Do you know if anyone would be
interested in porting insn-level discriminator support to trunk?
Do you mean r210338, r210397, r210523, r214745 ?
Ca
On 11.04.2015 01:49, Xinliang David Li wrote:
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
LBR is used for both cfg edge profiling and indirect call Target value
profiling.
I see, that makes sense ;) I guess if we want to support profile collection
on targets w/o this feature we could
11 matches
Mail list logo
