On Sat, 14 Jul 2018, H.J. Lu wrote:
> Like this?
Yes, this looks fine.
Thanks!
Gerald
On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 06:09:47PM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2018, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > I will do the same for GCC8 backport.
>
> Can you please add a note to gcc-8/changes.html? This seems big
> enough to warrant a note in a part for GCC 8.2.
>
> (At gcc-7/changes.html you can
On Fri, 13 Jul 2018, H.J. Lu wrote:
> I will do the same for GCC8 backport.
Can you please add a note to gcc-8/changes.html? This seems big
enough to warrant a note in a part for GCC 8.2.
(At gcc-7/changes.html you can see how to go about this for minor
releases.)
Gerald
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 9:31 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> > We have also noticed that benchmarks on skylake are not good compared to
>> > haswell, this nicely explains it. I think this is -march=native regression
>> > compared to GCC versions that did not suppored better CPUs than Haswell.
>> > So
> > We have also noticed that benchmarks on skylake are not good compared to
> > haswell, this nicely explains it. I think this is -march=native regression
> > compared to GCC versions that did not suppored better CPUs than Haswell.
> > So it
> > would be nice to backport it.
>
> Yes, we should
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 9:07 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> > > > diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
>> > > > index 9e46b7b136f..762ab89fc9e 100644
>> > > > --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
>> > > > +++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
>> > > > @@ -137,17 +137,22 @@ const struct processor
> > > > diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
> > > > index 9e46b7b136f..762ab89fc9e 100644
> > > > --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
> > > > +++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
> > > > @@ -137,17 +137,22 @@ const struct processor_costs *ix86_cost = NULL;
> > > > #define m_CORE2 (HOST_W
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 3:12 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 08:53:02AM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 9:57 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >
> > > r259399, which added PROCESSOR_SKYLAKE, disabled many x86 optimizations
> > > which are enabled by PROCESSOR_HASWELL. As t
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 08:53:02AM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 9:57 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
> > r259399, which added PROCESSOR_SKYLAKE, disabled many x86 optimizations
> > which are enabled by PROCESSOR_HASWELL. As the result, -mtune=skylake
> > generates slower codes on Sky
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 9:57 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> r259399, which added PROCESSOR_SKYLAKE, disabled many x86 optimizations
> which are enabled by PROCESSOR_HASWELL. As the result, -mtune=skylake
> generates slower codes on Skylake than before. The same also applies
> to Cannonlake and Icelak tun
10 matches
Mail list logo
