Hi,
Attached are two patches in gcc 4.7 trunk that we request to backport to 4.6
branch.
There are all related to -mvzerupper
1)
0001-Save-the-initial-options-after-checking-vzeroupper.patch
This patch fixes bug 47315, ICE: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2109
(unrecognizable insn) with -mvzeroupp
Hi,
I re-attached the patch here. Can someone review it?
We would like to commit to trunk as well as 4.6 branch.
Thanks,
Changpeng
From: Fang, Changpeng
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 5:42 PM
To: Fang, Changpeng; Jan Hubicka
Cc: Uros Bizjak; gcc
Is this patch OK to commit to trunk?
Also I would like to backport this patch to gcc 4.6 branch. Do I have to send a
separate
request or use this one?
Thanks,
Changpeng
From: Fang, Changpeng
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 7:12 PM
To: Jan Hubicka
Cc
:03 PM
To: 'H.J. Lu'
Cc: 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org'; 'hubi...@ucw.cz'; 'ubiz...@gmail.com';
'hongjiu...@intel.com'; Fang, Changpeng
Subject: RE: Backport AVX256 load/store split patches to gcc 4.6 for
performance boost on latest AMD/Intel hardware.
[hubi...@ucw.cz]
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 6:20 PM
To: Fang, Changpeng
Cc: Uros Bizjak; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; hubi...@ucw.cz; rguent...@suse.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH, i386] Enable -mprefer-avx128 by default for Bulldozer
Hi,
> --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
> +++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
&
Hi,
This patch enables 128-bit avx instruction generation for the auto-vectorizer
for AMD bulldozer
machines. This enablement gives additional ~3% improvement on polyhedron 2005
and cpu2006
floating point programs.
The patch passed bootstrapping on a x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu system with
Bulld
'ubiz...@gmail.com';
'hongjiu...@intel.com'; Fang, Changpeng
Subject: RE: Backport AVX256 load/store split patches to gcc 4.6 for
performance boost on latest AMD/Intel hardware.
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 9:58 AM, wrote:
> > Is it ok to backport patches, with Changel
Thanks,
Patch has been committed to trunk as revision 175230.
Changpeng
From: Uros Bizjak [ubiz...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 1:38 PM
To: Fang, Changpeng
Cc: H.J. Lu; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; hubi...@ucw.cz; rguent...@suse.de
Subject: Re
Hi,
I modified the patch as H.J. suggested (patch attached).
Is it OK to commit to trunk now?
Thanks,
Changpeng
From: H.J. Lu [hjl.to...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 5:44 PM
To: Fang, Changpeng
Cc: Richard Guenther; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
, Changpeng
Cc: Richard Guenther; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH, PR 49089] Don't split AVX256 unaligned loads by default on
bdver1 and generic
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Fang, Changpeng
wrote:
>>Why not just move AVX256_SPLIT_UNALIGNED_STORE
>>and AVX256_SPLIT_
>Why not just move AVX256_SPLIT_UNALIGNED_STORE
>and AVX256_SPLIT_UNALIGNED_LOAD to ix86_tune_indices?
I would like to keep the -m option so that at least we can explicitly turn
off the splittings when regressions are found!
By the way, I can add an index for store splitting, if you want.
Thanks
Hi,
I modify the patch to disable unaligned load splitting only for bdver1 at this
moment.
Unaligned load splitting degrades CFP2006 by 1.3% in geomean for both
-mtune=bdver1 and
-mtune=generic on Bulldozer. However, we agree with H.J's suggestion to
determine
the optimal optimization sets fo
>I have no problems on -mtune=Bulldozer. But I object -mtune=generic
>change and did suggest a different approach for -mtune=generic.
Something must have been broken for the unaligned load splitting in generic
mode.
While we lose 1.3% on CFP2006 in geomean by splitting unaligned loads for
-mtu
>
> So, is it OK to commit this patch to trunk, and H.J's original patch + this
> to 4.6 branch?
>I have no problems on -mtune=Bulldozer. But I object -mtune=generic
>change and did suggest a different approach for -mtune=generic.
What's your suggested approach for -mtune=generic?
My underst
...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 8:05 AM
To: Jakub Jelinek; sergos@gmail.com
Cc: Richard Guenther; Fang, Changpeng; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH, PR 49089] Don't split AVX256 unaligned loads by default on
bdver1 and generic
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 3:16 AM, Jakub Jelinek
>It probably should go to the 4.6 branch as well.
H.J. Lu's original patch that splits unaligned load and store was checked in
gcc 4.7
trunk. We found that, splitting unaligned store is beneficial to bdver1,
splitting unaligned
load degrades cfp2006 by 1.3% in geomean on Bulldozer. As a result,
Hi,
The patch ( http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-02/txt00059.txt ) which
introduces splitting avx256 unaligned loads.
However, we found that it causes significant regressions for cpu2006 (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49089 ).
In this work, we introduce a tune option that
Yes, you are right. I renamed the flag to -mprefers-avx128 and modified
the documentation.
Is this OK to commit to 4.6?
Thanks,
Changpeng
From: Richard Henderson [r...@redhat.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 3:50 PM
To: Fang, Changpeng
Cc: Jakub
18 matches
Mail list logo
