--- Comment #9 from law at redhat dot com 2010-03-23 17:36 ---
Subject: Re: Powerpc generates worse code for
-mvsx on gromacs even though there are no VSX instructions used
On 03/22/10 16:20, vmakarov at redhat dot com wrote:
--- Comment #6 from vmakarov at redhat dot com
--- Comment #10 from vmakarov at redhat dot com 2010-03-23 18:45 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Still I'll investigate a bit more why there are a lot of unexpected spills
during assignment with -mvsx for the current code.
The problem is in that part of VSX_REGS (altivec regs) does
--- Comment #11 from vmakarov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-23 19:19
---
Subject: Bug 43413
Author: vmakarov
Date: Tue Mar 23 19:18:42 2010
New Revision: 157676
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=157676
Log:
2010-03-23 Vladimir Makarov vmaka...@redhat.com
--- Comment #12 from meissner at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-23 23:40
---
This reduces the spills, and brings the performance backs up. I'm closing the
bug. Thanks.
--
meissner at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from law at redhat dot com 2010-03-22 19:49 ---
FWIW, I seem to get considerably worse code from mainline than you -- for -O3
-ffast-math -mcpu=power7 -mvsx -maltivec I get 140 stfs and 192 lfs insns
(compared to 117 139 respectively that you reported).
Just for fun, I
--- Comment #5 from vmakarov at redhat dot com 2010-03-22 22:16 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
In the enclosed test case, it generates the following spills for the options:
-O3 -ffast-math -mcpu=power7 -mvsx -maltivec: 117 stfs, 139 lfs
-O3 -ffast-math -mcpu=power5 -maltivec: 80
--- Comment #6 from vmakarov at redhat dot com 2010-03-22 22:20 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
FWIW, I seem to get considerably worse code from mainline than you -- for -O3
-ffast-math -mcpu=power7 -mvsx -maltivec I get 140 stfs and 192 lfs insns
(compared to 117 139 respectively that
--- Comment #7 from meissner at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com 2010-03-22
22:24 ---
Subject: Re: Powerpc generates worse code for
-mvsx on gromacs even though there are no VSX instructions used
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 10:20:21PM -, vmakarov at redhat dot com wrote:
---
--- Comment #8 from meissner at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com 2010-03-22
22:29 ---
Subject: Re: Powerpc generates worse code for
-mvsx on gromacs even though there are no VSX instructions used
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 10:16:56PM -, vmakarov at redhat dot com wrote:
---
--- Comment #1 from meissner at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-17 22:35
---
Created an attachment (id=20134)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20134action=view)
Test case from the gromacs benchmark
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43413
--- Comment #2 from meissner at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-17 22:37
---
Created an attachment (id=20135)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20135action=view)
Bzip2 tar file of the assembly output for altivec, vsx, scalar, and no-spill
--
--- Comment #3 from meissner at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-17 22:38
---
Created an attachment (id=20136)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20136action=view)
Bzip2 tar file of the ira dump output for altivec, vsx, scalar, and no-spill
--
12 matches
Mail list logo
