On 01/02/2018 12:57 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> From what I've measured, suggested adjustment for this particular predictor
> would be
> increase to 89.
Hello.
Note that I've installed the patch as r256888.
Martin
On 01/02/2018 04:57 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 12/24/2017 07:58 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 12/24/2017 05:03 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>> On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 09:12:56AM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Segher Boessenkool writes:
> On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 04:53:47PM -0600, David Es
On 12/24/2017 07:58 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 12/24/2017 05:03 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 09:12:56AM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>> Segher Boessenkool writes:
On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 04:53:47PM -0600, David Esparza wrote:
> With a value of 85 GCC has a CP
On 12/24/2017 05:03 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 09:12:56AM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Segher Boessenkool writes:
>>> On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 04:53:47PM -0600, David Esparza wrote:
With a value of 85 GCC has a CPU performance degradation of 11%,
reverti
On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 09:12:56AM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Segher Boessenkool writes:
> > On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 04:53:47PM -0600, David Esparza wrote:
> >> With a value of 85 GCC has a CPU performance degradation of 11%,
> >> reverting PRED_LOOP_EXIT to 92 this degradation disappear.
>
Segher Boessenkool writes:
> On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 04:53:47PM -0600, David Esparza wrote:
>> With a value of 85 GCC has a CPU performance degradation of 11%,
>> reverting PRED_LOOP_EXIT to 92 this degradation disappear.
>> Those values where measured by running c-ray ray-tracer that is a
>> floa
On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 04:53:47PM -0600, David Esparza wrote:
> With a value of 85 GCC has a CPU performance degradation of 11%,
> reverting PRED_LOOP_EXIT to 92 this degradation disappear.
> Those values where measured by running c-ray ray-tracer that is a
> floating point benchmark that runs out
