On February 17, 2011 20:18:11 Johan Tibell wrote:
> * Can we use SSE instructions?
>
> * Can we get the C memcpy code inlined into the C-- source (crazy, I
> know). If so we could perhaps benefit directly from optimizations in
> libc.
From the standpoint of numerical code, it would be very nice
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 12:54 AM, Roman Leshchinskiy
wrote:
> Max Bolingbroke wrote:
> > On 18 February 2011 01:18, Johan Tibell wrote:>
> It seems like a sufficient solution for your needs would be for us to
> > use the LTO support in LLVM to inline across module boundaries - in
> > particular
Thanks for the tip. I cannot easily update binutils. I am with version
2.17.50.0.6-14.el5 20061020. On another machine (32bit) it works fine...
Cheers,
Pedro
2011/2/18 Wolfram Kahl
> I am not certain, but this may be the same problem that I once had,
> and that was solved by updating to binuti
I am not certain, but this may be the same problem that I once had,
and that was solved by updating to binutils-2.20.
ld --version
GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.20.1.20100303
Wolfram
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 11:34:03AM +0100, José Pedro Magalhães wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm getting the same error as A
Hi all,
I'm getting the same error as Alexy below in some 64bit linux system. What
can I do? Adding -fPIC and also -dynamic does not seem to solve the problem.
Also, this only happens with a perf build; devel1 works fine.
Thanks,
Pedro
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 05:56, braver wrote:
> An attempt
Johan Tibell wrote:
>
> * Could we use built-in compiler rules to catch array copies of known
> length and replace them with e.g. unrolled loops? My particular use case
> involves copying small arrays (size: 1-32). Ideally this should be as fast
> as copying a tuple of the corresponding size but I'
Max Bolingbroke wrote:
> On 18 February 2011 01:18, Johan Tibell wrote:
>
> It seems like a sufficient solution for your needs would be for us to
> use the LTO support in LLVM to inline across module boundaries - in
> particular to inline primop implementations into their call sites. LLVM
> would
Hi Simon,
Thank you for explanation. I think I now understand why -H behaves that way.
2011/2/17 Simon Marlow :
> Anyway, with -N2 and above I don't recommend using -H, generally I've found
> it results in lower performance. -A1m might be good if your CPUs have
> larger L2 caches. I have some l
On 18 February 2011 01:18, Johan Tibell wrote:
> C compilers, like gcc, go to great lengths making memcpy fast and I
> was thinking that we might be able to steal a trick or two from them.
> I'd like some feedback on these ideas:
It seems like a sufficient solution for your needs would be for us
