> On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 09:29:09AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Sun, 6 Jan 2019, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > > Even though it is late in release cycle I wonder if we can do that for
> > > GCC 9? Performance of vectorization is very architecture specific, I
> > > would propose enabling
On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 09:29:09AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > Even though it is late in release cycle I wonder if we can do that for
> > GCC 9? Performance of vectorization is very architecture specific, I
> > would propose enabling vectorization for
> > Note that I benchmarked -ftree-slp-vectorize separately before and
> > results was hit/miss, so perhaps enabling only -ftree-vectorize would
> > give better compile time tradeoffs. I was worried of partial memory
> > stalls, but I will benchmark it and also benchmark difference between
> >
> Note that I benchmarked -ftree-slp-vectorize separately before and
> results was hit/miss, so perhaps enabling only -ftree-vectorize would
> give better compile time tradeoffs. I was worried of partial memory
> stalls, but I will benchmark it and also benchmark difference between
> cost models.
On Sun, 6 Jan 2019, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Hello,
> while running benchmarks for inliner tuning I also run benchmarks
> comparing -O2 and -O2 -ftree-vectorize -ftree-slp-vectorize using Martin
> Liska's LNT setup (https://lnt.opensuse.org/). The results are
> summarized below but you can also see
Hello,
while running benchmarks for inliner tuning I also run benchmarks
comparing -O2 and -O2 -ftree-vectorize -ftree-slp-vectorize using Martin
Liska's LNT setup (https://lnt.opensuse.org/). The results are
summarized below but you can also see also colorful table produced
by Martin's LNT magic
