We would like to propose changing AVX generic mode tuning to generate 128-bit
AVX instead of 256-bit AVX. As per H.J's suggestion, we have reviewed the
various tuning choices made for generic mode with respect to AMD's upcoming
Bulldozer processor. At this moment, this is the most significant chang
Hi,
This patch does the basic enablement for AMD's upcoming bdver2 processor.
It defines -march=bdver2 and -mtune=bdver2, and lets -march=native correctly
recognizes bdver2. At the moment the tuning is mostly a copy of bdver1.
The patch passed bootstrap and the x86 tests.
Is it OK to commit to tr
Is it ok to commit backported patch from trunk below to gcc 4.6 as long as
bootstrap and tests pass (ongoing)? This is one of the patches that is
significant enough a bug for recent AMD and Intel hardware.
2011-06-29 Harsha Jagasia
Backport from mainline
2011-05-31 Alexa
Is it ok to backport patches, with Changelogs below, already in trunk to gcc
4.6? These patches are significant enough bugs fror recent AMD and Intel
hardware. If ok and unless the individual authors want to backport, I will
post backported patches for commit approval.
[PATCH] Handle misaligned TF
Is it ok to backport patches, with Changelogs below, already in trunk to gcc
4.6? These patches are for AVX-256bit load store splitting. These patches
make significant performance difference >=3% to several CPU2006 and
Polyhedron benchmarks on latest AMD and Intel hardware. If ok, I will post
backp
