This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [patch] tuning gcc for Intel Core2

From: Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov at redhat dot com>
To: "H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
Cc: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, jh at suse dot cz
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 17:49:13 -0500
Subject: Re: [patch] tuning gcc for Intel Core2
References: <4558A4DD.1080407@redhat.com> <20061114062718.GA11289@lucon.org> <4559DBCA.2040006@redhat.com> <20061114154956.GB15035@lucon.org> <20061115180730.GA25159@lucon.org>

H. J. Lu wrote:

On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 07:49:56AM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:

Can you turn on x86_rep_movl_optimal for -mtune=generic to see what
it does for SPEC CPU 2K on both 32bit and 64bit?

So for 64bit, -O2 + x86_rep_movl_optimal is better than -O2 and
-O2 -mtune=core2 on Core 2 Duo and Nocona. I suspect that we will
see similar trend on Opteron.

I've got about the same numbers for generic + x86_rep_movl_optimal. Although with -m32 generic + x86_rep_movl_optimal is a bit worse than -mtune=core2 (1836 vs 1841 for SPECINT and 1477 vs 1484 for SPECFP). It is in the range of measurement error. But again code size is smaller (0.73% and 0.66% correspondingly for SPECInt and SPECFp).

Vlad

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [patch] tuning gcc for Intel Core2
  - From: H. J. Lu

References:
- [patch] tuning gcc for Intel Core2
  - From: Vladimir Makarov
- Re: [patch] tuning gcc for Intel Core2
  - From: H. J. Lu
- Re: [patch] tuning gcc for Intel Core2
  - From: Vladimir Makarov
- Re: [patch] tuning gcc for Intel Core2
  - From: H. J. Lu
- Re: [patch] tuning gcc for Intel Core2
  - From: H. J. Lu

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]