On 01/23/2012 06:32 AM, Igor Zamyatin wrote:
Unfortunately patch doesn't help neither for separate EEMBC_2_0 tests
nor for the whole benchmark.
Do you want me to do some debugging here?
For now I am out of ideas how to fix the PR in alternative way without
some performance degradation on SPEC
Unfortunately patch doesn't help neither for separate EEMBC_2_0 tests
nor for the whole benchmark.
Do you want me to do some debugging here?
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 10:13 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> On 01/19/2012 03:52 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
>>
>> On 01/18/2012 02:30 PM, Zamyatin, Igor wr
On 01/19/2012 03:52 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
On 01/18/2012 02:30 PM, Zamyatin, Igor wrote:
Yes, we use Atom for EEMBC measurements.
We'll be glad to help you with your findings.
Thanks.
Unfortunately I tried several alternative patches but I did not find a
better solution (it is mostly
On 01/18/2012 02:30 PM, Zamyatin, Igor wrote:
Yes, we use Atom for EEMBC measurements.
We'll be glad to help you with your findings.
Thanks.
Unfortunately I tried several alternative patches but I did not find a
better solution (it is mostly code size degradation on CoreI7). Now I
am even
On 12/29/2011 06:41 AM, Igor Zamyatin wrote:
Ilya is on vacation so I'll make the answer.
Overall score became worse on 0.3%.
Ok, thanks. It is in the range of measure error for some processors.
But Intel processors range is pretty small.
Did you use Atom for measuring?
I'll try to find a
Ilya is on vacation so I'll make the answer.
Overall score became worse on 0.3%.
> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On
> Behalf Of Vladimir Makarov
> Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 8:15 PM
> To: Ilya Enkovich
> Cc: gcc-pat
