On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 11:33 AM Jan Hubicka <hubi...@ucw.cz> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:09 AM Jan Hubicka <hubi...@ucw.cz> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > this patch updates znver2 costs to match reality. In particular we > > > > re-benchmarked memcpy strategies and it looks that glibc now wins even > > > > for relatively small blocks. > > > > Moreover I updated costs of moves to reflect that znver2 has 256 vector > > > > paths and faster multiplication. > > > > > > > > Bootstrapped/regtested x86_64-linux, comitted. > > > > > > > > Honza > > > > > > > > * x86-tune-costs.h (znver2_memcpy): Update. > > > > (znver2_costs): Update 256 bit SSE costs and multiplication. > > > > > > Hello, > > > I have now backported the patch to gcc 9 branch. > > > > Thanks - can you please update changes.html for it in the 9.2 section? > > There seems to be no GCC 9.2 section yet.
Yes. Looks good to me btw. Richard. > Index: gcc-9/changes.html > =================================================================== > RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-9/changes.html,v > retrieving revision 1.72 > diff -c -3 -p -r1.72 changes.html > *** gcc-9/changes.html 12 Jul 2019 15:55:50 -0000 1.72 > --- gcc-9/changes.html 30 Jul 2019 09:32:17 -0000 > *************** complete (that is, it is possible that s > *** 1095,1099 **** > --- 1095,1105 ---- > are not listed here).</p> > > <!-- .................................................................. --> > + <h2 id="GCC9.2">GCC 9.2</h2> > + <ul> > + <li>IA-32/x86-64 backend tuning for <code>znver2</code> was improved > based on benchmarks on real hardware.</li> > + </uL> > + > + <!-- .................................................................. --> > </body> > </html>
