On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 16:20 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012, William J. Schmidt wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 14:48 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > > On Tue, 19 Jun 2012, William J. Schmidt wrote:
> > >
> > > > I remember having this discussion, and I was looking for
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012, William J. Schmidt wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 14:48 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Jun 2012, William J. Schmidt wrote:
> >
> > > I remember having this discussion, and I was looking for it to check on
> > > the details, but I can't seem to find it either in
On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 14:48 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012, William J. Schmidt wrote:
>
> > I remember having this discussion, and I was looking for it to check on
> > the details, but I can't seem to find it either in my inbox or in the
> > archives. Can you please point me
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012, William J. Schmidt wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 12:10 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, William J. Schmidt wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 13:49 -0500, William J. Schmidt wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2012-06-11 at 13:40 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 12:10 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, William J. Schmidt wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 13:49 -0500, William J. Schmidt wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2012-06-11 at 13:40 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 8 Jun 2012, William J. Schmidt wrote:
> >
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012, William J. Schmidt wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 12:08 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, William J. Schmidt wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 2012-06-11 at 13:40 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 8 Jun 2012, William J. Schmidt wrote:
> > > >
> > >
On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 12:08 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, William J. Schmidt wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2012-06-11 at 13:40 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > > On Fri, 8 Jun 2012, William J. Schmidt wrote:
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > Hmm. I don't like this patch or its general ide
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, William J. Schmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 13:49 -0500, William J. Schmidt wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-06-11 at 13:40 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > > On Fri, 8 Jun 2012, William J. Schmidt wrote:
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > Hmm. I don't like this patch or its general ide
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, William J. Schmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-06-11 at 13:40 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > On Fri, 8 Jun 2012, William J. Schmidt wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Hmm. I don't like this patch or its general idea too much. Instead
> > I'd like us to move more of the cost model detail
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 13:49 -0500, William J. Schmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-06-11 at 13:40 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > On Fri, 8 Jun 2012, William J. Schmidt wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Hmm. I don't like this patch or its general idea too much. Instead
> > I'd like us to move more of the cost
On Mon, 2012-06-11 at 13:40 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jun 2012, William J. Schmidt wrote:
>
>
> Hmm. I don't like this patch or its general idea too much. Instead
> I'd like us to move more of the cost model detail to the target, giving
> it a chance to look at the whole loop
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 5:38 PM, William J. Schmidt
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 2012-06-11 at 11:09 -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>> > Well, they are at least magic numbers and heuristics that apply
>> > generally and not only to the single
On Mon, 2012-06-11 at 11:09 -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> > Well, they are at least magic numbers and heuristics that apply
> > generally and not only to the single issue in sphinx. And in
> > fact how it works for sphinx _is_ magi
On Mon, 2012-06-11 at 16:58 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 11 Jun 2012, William J. Schmidt wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 2012-06-11 at 13:40 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 8 Jun 2012, William J. Schmidt wrote:
> > > >
> > >
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> Well, they are at least magic numbers and heuristics that apply
> generally and not only to the single issue in sphinx. And in
> fact how it works for sphinx _is_ magic.
>
>> Second, I suggest that you need to rephrase "I can make you"
On Mon, 11 Jun 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2012, William J. Schmidt wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2012-06-11 at 13:40 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > > On Fri, 8 Jun 2012, William J. Schmidt wrote:
> > >
> > > > This patch adds a heuristic to the vectorizer when estimating the
> > >
On Mon, 11 Jun 2012, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Jun 2012, David Edelsohn wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 7:40 AM, Richard Guenther
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hmm. I don't like this patch or its general idea too much. I
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2012, David Edelsohn wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 7:40 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>> > Hmm. I don't like this patch or its general idea too much. Instead
>> > I'd like us to move more of the cost model detail
On Mon, 11 Jun 2012, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 7:40 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> > Hmm. I don't like this patch or its general idea too much. Instead
> > I'd like us to move more of the cost model detail to the target, giving
> > it a chance to look at the whole loop b
On Mon, 11 Jun 2012, William J. Schmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-06-11 at 13:40 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > On Fri, 8 Jun 2012, William J. Schmidt wrote:
> >
> > > This patch adds a heuristic to the vectorizer when estimating the
> > > minimum profitable number of iterations. The heuristic i
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 7:40 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> Hmm. I don't like this patch or its general idea too much. Instead
> I'd like us to move more of the cost model detail to the target, giving
> it a chance to look at the whole loop before deciding on a cost. ISTR
> posting the overall
On Mon, 2012-06-11 at 13:40 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jun 2012, William J. Schmidt wrote:
>
> > This patch adds a heuristic to the vectorizer when estimating the
> > minimum profitable number of iterations. The heuristic is
> > target-dependent, and is currently disabled for all
On Fri, 8 Jun 2012, William J. Schmidt wrote:
> This patch adds a heuristic to the vectorizer when estimating the
> minimum profitable number of iterations. The heuristic is
> target-dependent, and is currently disabled for all targets except
> PowerPC. However, the intent is to make it general
This patch adds a heuristic to the vectorizer when estimating the
minimum profitable number of iterations. The heuristic is
target-dependent, and is currently disabled for all targets except
PowerPC. However, the intent is to make it general enough to be useful
for other targets that want to opt
24 matches
Mail list logo
