--- Comment #4 from avi at argo dot co dot il 2006-04-11 15:36 ---
Benchmark results, 32 bit code, various methods
On an athlon 64:
bts reg, (reg): 1 cycle
bts reg, (mem): 3 cycles
C code (reg):1 cycle
C code (mem):5 cycles
On a Xeon:
bts reg, (reg): 6
--- Comment #5 from avi at argo dot co dot il 2006-04-11 15:38 ---
Created an attachment (id=11243)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11243&action=view)
benchmark for various set_bit() implementions
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25671
--- Comment #6 from avi at argo dot co dot il 2006-04-11 15:39 ---
oops, the benchmark was for bts. will do again for bt.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25671
--- Comment #7 from avi at argo dot co dot il 2006-04-11 15:53 ---
Created an attachment (id=11244)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11244&action=view)
bt instruction benchmark
redone the test for test_bit(), this time always forcing a memory access:
At
: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: avi at argo dot co dot il
GCC build triplet: x86_64-redhat-linux
GCC host triplet: x86_64-redhat-linux
GCC target triplet: i386-redhat-linux (with -m32)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27312
--- Comment #2 from avi at argo dot co dot il 2006-04-25 15:57 ---
But why 24? gcc could place the object in any of the 12 bytes needed for stack
alignment.
I don't see any reason why the empty object needs to be aligned to more than a
byte boundary.
What am I missing?
--
gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: avi at argo dot co dot il
GCC build triplet: x86_64-redhat-linux
GCC host triplet: x86_64-redhat-linux
GCC target triplet: x86_64-redhat-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25671
UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
Priority: P3
Component: inline-asm
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: avi at argo dot co dot il
GCC build triplet: N/A
GCC host triplet: N/A
GCC target triplet: N/A
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29357
--- Comment #1 from avi at argo dot co dot il 2006-10-05 16:05 ---
Created an attachment (id=12384)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12384&action=view)
proposed documentation patch
I don't have a coypright assignment, but most of this is copied verba
sion: 4.4.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: avi at argo dot co dot il
GCC build triplet: x86_64-pc-linux
GCC host triplet: x86_64-pc-linux
GCC target t
--- Comment #3 from avi at argo dot co dot il 2009-09-28 05:51 ---
Of course, sorry about the noise. Marking as invalid.
--
avi at argo dot co dot il changed:
What|Removed |Added
gnu dot org
ReportedBy: avi at argo dot co dot il
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: i386-redhat-linux
GCC host triplet: i386-redhat-linux
GCC target triplet: i386-redhat-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23477
gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: avi at argo dot co dot il
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: i386-redhat-linux
GCC host triplet: i386-redhat-linux
GCC target triplet: i386-redhat-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23480
13 matches
Mail list logo
