On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 06:57:54AM +, Hurugalawadi, Naveen wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Thanks for clearing the confusion.
>
> > I don't understand this comment and how it relates to your updated patch
>
> foo, foo1 and foo2 generates calls to "popcountdi2" which should have
> been "popcountsi2"
On 03/02/17 06:57, Hurugalawadi, Naveen wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Thanks for clearing the confusion.
I don't understand this comment and how it relates to your updated patch
foo, foo1 and foo2 generates calls to "popcountdi2" which should have
been "popcountsi2" for foo1. When Kyrill commented on us
Hi Andrew,
Thanks for clearing the confusion.
> I don't understand this comment and how it relates to your updated patch
foo, foo1 and foo2 generates calls to "popcountdi2" which should have
been "popcountsi2" for foo1. When Kyrill commented on using the
popcountsi2; I was confused :).
Hence, t
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 3:55 AM, James Greenhalgh
wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 04:03:42AM +, Hurugalawadi, Naveen wrote:
>> Hi James and Kyrill,
>>
>> Thanks for the review and comments on the patch.
>>
>> >> On ILP32 systems this would still use the SImode patterns,
>> >> so I suggest you
On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 04:03:42AM +, Hurugalawadi, Naveen wrote:
> Hi James and Kyrill,
>
> Thanks for the review and comments on the patch.
>
> >> On ILP32 systems this would still use the SImode patterns,
> >> so I suggest you use __builtin_popcountll and
> >> an unsigned long long return
Hi James and Kyrill,
Thanks for the review and comments on the patch.
>> On ILP32 systems this would still use the SImode patterns,
>> so I suggest you use __builtin_popcountll and
>> an unsigned long long return type to ensure you always exercise the 64-bit
>> code.
Sorry for not commenting o
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 11:59:36AM +, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> Hi Naveen,
>
> On 13/12/16 11:51, Hurugalawadi, Naveen wrote:
> >Hi Kyrill,
> >
> >Thanks for reviewing the patch and your useful comments.
> >
> >>>looks good to me if it has gone through the normal required
> >>>bootstrap and test
Hi Naveen,
On 13/12/16 11:51, Hurugalawadi, Naveen wrote:
Hi Kyrill,
Thanks for reviewing the patch and your useful comments.
looks good to me if it has gone through the normal required
bootstrap and testing, but I can't approve.
Bootstrapped and Regression Tested on aarch64-thunderx-linux.
Hi Kyrill,
Thanks for reviewing the patch and your useful comments.
>> looks good to me if it has gone through the normal required
>> bootstrap and testing, but I can't approve.
Bootstrapped and Regression Tested on aarch64-thunderx-linux.
>> The rest of the MD file uses the term AdvSIMD. Also,
Hi Naveen,
On 12/12/16 03:16, Hurugalawadi, Naveen wrote:
Hi,
Please find attached the patch that implements the support for popcount
patterns in AArch64.
The implementation improves OVS-DPDK on ThunderX by 3%. It would have a
similar effect on other AArch64 targets.
Please review the patch a
Hi,
Please find attached the patch that implements the support for popcount
patterns in AArch64.
The implementation improves OVS-DPDK on ThunderX by 3%. It would have a
similar effect on other AArch64 targets.
Please review the patch and let us know if its okay?
2016-12-12 Andrew Pinski
gcc
11 matches
Mail list logo
