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: Pad short functions for Atom

From: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gmail dot com>
To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
Cc: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, "H.J. Lu" <hongjiu dot lu at intel dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 14:22:44 -0700
Subject: Re: PATCH: Pad short functions for Atom
References: <20100913145422.GA21719@intel.com> <4C8FE0AC.5020404@redhat.com> <AANLkTinzgZWd5P4xptSMRUw06XPBx8=nSobK7F-BfxZK@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 2:20 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> The machine does more than just stall. It replays, which
> ends up costing more than just "waiting".

I think the biggest question is that people who care about atom will
they be compiling with -Os (which should disable this optimization by
default)?  If that is true, should we be worrying about this
optimization in general?

-- Pinski

Follow-Ups:
- Re: PATCH: Pad short functions for Atom
  - From: H.J. Lu

References:
- PATCH: Pad short functions for Atom
  - From: H.J. Lu
- Re: PATCH: Pad short functions for Atom
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: PATCH: Pad short functions for Atom
  - From: H.J. Lu

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