https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113247
JuzheZhong changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113247
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Pan Li :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7be87b7d2e330afd14a7cc028f64d88f80e12f40
commit r14-7245-g7be87b7d2e330afd14a7cc028f64d88f80e12f40
Author: Juzhe-Zhong
Date: Mon Jan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113247
--- Comment #10 from Li Pan ---
(In reply to Robin Dapp from comment #9)
> I also noticed this (likely unwanted) vector snippet and wondered where it
> is being created. First I thought it's a vec_extract but doesn't look like
> it. I'm going
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113247
--- Comment #9 from Robin Dapp ---
I also noticed this (likely unwanted) vector snippet and wondered where it is
being created. First I thought it's a vec_extract but doesn't look like it.
I'm going to check why we create this.
Pan, the test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113247
Li Pan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pan2.li at intel dot com
--- Comment #8 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113247
--- Comment #7 from JuzheZhong ---
Hi, Robin.
I sent a patch switching cost model into generic cost model:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-January/642428.html
But I tweak the cost back to default cost.
Since current generic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113247
--- Comment #6 from JuzheZhong ---
I have tried generic-ooo:
https://compiler-explorer.com/z/44dcePczz
There are still a few vectorized codes in the last couple lines of assembler:
vsetivlizero,4,e32,m1,ta,ma
addw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113247
--- Comment #5 from JuzheZhong ---
(In reply to Robin Dapp from comment #4)
> The other option is to assert that all tune models have at least a vector
> cost model rather than NULL... But not falling back to the builtin costs
> still makes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113247
--- Comment #4 from Robin Dapp ---
The other option is to assert that all tune models have at least a vector cost
model rather than NULL... But not falling back to the builtin costs still
makes sense.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113247
--- Comment #3 from Robin Dapp ---
Yes, sure and I gave a bit of detail why the values chosen there (same as
aarch64) make sense to me.
Using this generic vector cost model by default without adjusting the latencies
is possible. I would be OK
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113247
--- Comment #2 from JuzheZhong ---
(In reply to Robin Dapp from comment #1)
> Hmm, so I tried reproducing this and without a vector cost model we indeed
> vectorize. My qemu dynamic instruction count results are not as abysmal as
> yours but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113247
--- Comment #1 from Robin Dapp ---
Hmm, so I tried reproducing this and without a vector cost model we indeed
vectorize. My qemu dynamic instruction count results are not as abysmal as
yours but still bad enough (20-30% increase in dynamic
12 matches
Mail list logo
