https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107413
--- Comment #19 from Rama Malladi ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #17)
> (In reply to Rama Malladi from comment #16)
> > (In reply to Wilco from comment #15)
> > > (In reply to Rama Malladi from comment #14)
> > > > This fix also improved
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107413
--- Comment #18 from Rama Malladi ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #17)
> (In reply to Rama Malladi from comment #16)
> > (In reply to Wilco from comment #15)
> > > (In reply to Rama Malladi from comment #14)
> > > > This fix also improved
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107413
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107413
--- Comment #16 from Rama Malladi ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #15)
> (In reply to Rama Malladi from comment #14)
> > This fix also improved performance of 538.imagick_r by 15%. Did you have a
> > similar observation? Thank you.
>
> No,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107413
--- Comment #15 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Rama Malladi from comment #14)
> This fix also improved performance of 538.imagick_r by 15%. Did you have a
> similar observation? Thank you.
No, but I was using -mcpu=neoverse-n1 as my baseline.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107413
--- Comment #14 from Rama Malladi ---
This fix also improved performance of 538.imagick_r by 15%. Did you have a
similar observation? Thank you.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107413
--- Comment #13 from Rama Malladi ---
(In reply to CVS Commits from comment #12)
> The master branch has been updated by Wilco Dijkstra :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0c1b0a23f1fe7db6a2e391b7cb78cff90032
>
> commit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107413
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Wilco Dijkstra :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0c1b0a23f1fe7db6a2e391b7cb78cff90032
commit r13-4291-g0c1b0a23f1fe7db6a2e391b7cb78cff90032
Author: Wilco Dijkstra
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107413
--- Comment #11 from Rama Malladi ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #10)
> I'm seeing about 1.5% gain on Neoverse V1 and 0.5% loss on Neoverse N1. I'll
> post a patch that allows per-CPU settings for FMA reassociation, so you'll
> get good
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107413
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107413
--- Comment #9 from Rama Malladi ---
(In reply to Rama Malladi from comment #8)
> (In reply to Wilco from comment #7)
> > The revert results in about 0.5% loss on Neoverse N1, so it looks like the
> > reassociation pass is still splitting FMAs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107413
--- Comment #8 from Rama Malladi ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #7)
> The revert results in about 0.5% loss on Neoverse N1, so it looks like the
> reassociation pass is still splitting FMAs into separate MUL and ADD (which
> is bad for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107413
--- Comment #7 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Rama Malladi from comment #5)
> So, looks like we aren't impacted much with this commit revert.
>
> I haven't yet tried fp_reassoc_width. Will try shortly.
The revert results in about 0.5% loss on
13 matches
Mail list logo
