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
a Enkovich
> Cc: gcc-patches
> Subject: Re: patch to fix PR21617
>
> On 12/22/2011 06:19 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>> 2011/12/13 Vladimir Makarov:
>>> The following patch solves PR 21617 which is described on
>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21617
On 12/22/2011 06:19 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
2011/12/13 Vladimir Makarov:
The following patch solves PR 21617 which is described on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21617.
Just adding number of necessary hard registers solves the problem but
creates 2% SPEC2000 perlbmk degradation on
2011/12/13 Vladimir Makarov :
> The following patch solves PR 21617 which is described on
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21617.
>
> Just adding number of necessary hard registers solves the problem but
> creates 2% SPEC2000 perlbmk degradation on x86. Fortunately, removing
> allocno
The following patch solves PR 21617 which is described on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21617.
Just adding number of necessary hard registers solves the problem but
creates 2% SPEC2000 perlbmk degradation on x86. Fortunately, removing
allocno class comparison removes the degrada
