https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88767
--- Comment #15 from Jiu Fu Guo ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #14)
>
> I've only quickly tried to understand what you are proposing but I think
> this is out-of scope of our "separate" distribution / interchange /
> unroll-and-jam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88767
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jiu Fu Guo from comment #13)
> Hi Richard，
>
> As checking the changed code as in comment 9, it seems there is another
> opportunity to improve the performance: By improving locality of array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88767
--- Comment #13 from Jiu Fu Guo ---
Hi Richard，
As checking the changed code as in comment 9, it seems there is another
opportunity to improve the performance: By improving locality of array A
usage.
Unroll and jam loop1 into loop4 (or unroll
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88767
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88767
--- Comment #11 from Jiu Fu Guo ---
And the patch(PR98137) also helps a lot for the code in comment 9, since
vectorization happens.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88767
Jiu Fu Guo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||guojiufu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88767
Li Jia He changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88767
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 9 Jan 2019, wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88767
>
> --- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
> (In reply to Michael Matz from comment #3)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88767
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to Michael Matz from comment #3)
> I don't see anything to improve either (as far as unroll-and-jam is
> concerned).
> It's quite possible that cunrolli is harming more than helping in this case,
> b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88767
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
Yes, we don't want to encourage disabling cunrolli by hand for production use.
This test case is interesting because it shows a tension between complete
unrolling of inner loops and classical HPC loop optimiz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88767
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
From the original reporter:
Partially unrolling the outermost loop in the innermost loop body enables data
reuse for array A (see source) thereby improving the mem-ops/compute ratio and
providing the performa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88767
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 9 Jan 2019, wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88767
>
> Bill Schmidt changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88767
--- Comment #3 from Michael Matz ---
I don't see anything to improve either (as far as unroll-and-jam is concerned).
It's quite possible that cunrolli is harming more than helping in this case,
but with it disabled it seems the code is as it shou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88767
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88767
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
15 matches
Mail list logo
