all. We will have a look into it.
Regards
Ganesh
-Original Message-
From: Richard Biener [mailto:rguent...@suse.de]
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 1:08 PM
To: Gopalasubramanian, Ganesh
Cc: Uros Bizjak; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: RE: [PATCH] Fix bdverN vector cost of
On Wed, 8 Apr 2015, Gopalasubramanian, Ganesh wrote:
> > I have added a person from AMD to comment on the decision.
> > Otherwise, the patch looks OK, but please wait a couple of days for
> > possible comments.
>
> Thank you Uros!
> I am checking the changes with few tests and benchmarking them.
> I have added a person from AMD to comment on the decision.
> Otherwise, the patch looks OK, but please wait a couple of days for possible
> comments.
Thank you Uros!
I am checking the changes with few tests and benchmarking them.
Please wait for a couple of days.
-Ganesh
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> They are suspiciously low (compared to say scalar_stmt_cost) and with
> them and the fix for the vectorizer cost model to properly account
> scalar stmt costs (and thus correctly dealing with odd costs as bdverN
> have) we regress 252.eon
They are suspiciously low (compared to say scalar_stmt_cost) and with
them and the fix for the vectorizer cost model to properly account
scalar stmt costs (and thus correctly dealing with odd costs as bdverN
have) we regress 252.eon because we consider a loop vectorized and
peeled for alignment lo
