> Though there's a slight (<1%) overall improvement on Exynos M1, there just
were
> too many significant (<-3%) regressions for a few significant improvements for
me
> to be comfortable with -frename-registers being a generic default for AArch64.
>
> I'll run some larger benchmarks tonight, but I'
> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 02:50:15PM +0100, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> >
> > As mentioned in
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/msg00297.html,
> > frename-registers registers can be beneficial for aarch64 and the
> > patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/msg01618.html
> > res
> On 10 Jun 2016, at 01:28, Jim Wilson wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 2:56 AM, James Greenhalgh
> wrote:
>> As you're proposing to have this on by default, I'd like to give a chance
>> to hear whether there is consensus as to this being the right choice for
>> the thunderx, xgene1, exynos-m
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 2:56 AM, James Greenhalgh
wrote:
> As you're proposing to have this on by default, I'd like to give a chance
> to hear whether there is consensus as to this being the right choice for
> the thunderx, xgene1, exynos-m1 and qdf24xx subtargets.
I tested this on qdf24xx using
On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 02:50:15PM +0100, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As mentioned in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/msg00297.html,
> frename-registers registers can be beneficial for aarch64 and the patch at
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/msg01618.html resolves t
Hi all,
As mentioned in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/msg00297.html,
frename-registers registers can be beneficial for aarch64
and the patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/msg01618.html
resolves the AESE/AESMC fusion issue that it exposed
in the aarch64 backend. So t
