Sebastian Pop wrote:
Wow! Thanks for the numbers. I guess from your message that there
were no ICEs or other problems with the loop distribution patch.
Exactly.
--
Toon Moene - e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - phone: +31 346 214290
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
At home:
On Dec 16, 2007 4:24 AM, Toon Moene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here are, in addition, the numbers for compiling and
> running HIRLAM with -ftree-loop-distribution (after applying your patch,
> obviously).
>
> In short, almost 1900 more loops are vectorized,
IBMIL To
Sent by: Toon Moene
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> >> note: not vectorized: vectorization may not beprofitable.
> >
> > This is due to switching on vector cost model by default for x86.
>
> Ah, but my hidden critique of the message was:
> -ftree-vectorizer-verbose=2 should *only* tell us:
>
> 1. Which loops are vectorized.
Uros Bizjak wrote:
note: not vectorized: vectorization may not beprofitable.
This is due to switching on vector cost model by default for x86.
Ah, but my hidden critique of the message was:
-ftree-vectorizer-verbose=2 should *only* tell us:
1. Which loops are vectorized.
2. Which are not
Hello!
There something weird going on with the count of the "loops not
vectorized" - every successfully vectorized loop gets an additional
message:
note: not vectorized: vectorization may not beprofitable.
This is due to switching on vector cost model by default for x86.
BTW: Attached patc
Sebastian,
Here are, in addition, the numbers for compiling and
running HIRLAM with -ftree-loop-distribution (after applying your patch,
obviously).
There something weird going on with the count of the "loops not
vectorized" - every successfully vectorized lo
