On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 06:03:01AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > tbsaunde+...@tbsaunde.org writes: > > > I have some more patches that almost completely eliminate these, but I > > haven't > > tested the rest yet, and this is already a long series so it would be nice > > to > > get some of it out of my tree and reviewed. > > > > patches individually bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-linux-gnu, ok? I > > expect none of this will more than textually conflict with something that > > may > > need backported to gcc-6, but its waited a month already I guess it can wait > > longer if people prefer. > > A vector can have very different performance than a list, depending how > it is used. Do your patches cause any measure performance difference for > the compiler?
I haven't measured, but I am aware of that and did consider it when writing these patches. I expect they'll help perf some since I went through some hoops to not move elements around the vector unnecessarily. I'm not really sure what work load is most effected by each of these patches, and they don't really seem that risky to me so I'd rather notdo tons of testing on the off chance they slow something down, in the worst case we can always revert something to a list without using rtx. Trev > > -Andi
