On 12 February 2013 14:42, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 11/02/13 15:43, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>
>> Richard,
>>
>> Thanks for your comments.
>>
>> Here a new version with the changes you suggested.
>>
>
> Thanks for turning this around quickly. This is fine.
>
> Ramana and I have discussed this
On 11/02/13 15:43, Christophe Lyon wrote:
Richard,
Thanks for your comments.
Here a new version with the changes you suggested.
Thanks for turning this around quickly. This is fine.
Ramana and I have discussed this and we're agreed that we'd like this to
go into 4.8. However, if any prob
Richard,
Thanks for your comments.
Here a new version with the changes you suggested.
Christophe
On 11 February 2013 11:57, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 05/02/13 18:18, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Following the discussion about "disable peeling" [1] a few weeks ago,
>> it turned ou
On 05/02/13 18:18, Christophe Lyon wrote:
Hi,
Following the discussion about "disable peeling" [1] a few weeks ago,
it turned out that the vectorizer cost model needed some
implementation for ARM.
The attached patch implements arm_builtin_vectorization_cost and
arm_add_stmt_cost, providing defa
Hi,
Following the discussion about "disable peeling" [1] a few weeks ago,
it turned out that the vectorizer cost model needed some
implementation for ARM.
The attached patch implements arm_builtin_vectorization_cost and
arm_add_stmt_cost, providing default costs when aligned and unaligned
loads/s