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, i386 tuning] Generate 128-bit AVX by default for bdver1

From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
To: "Fang, Changpeng" <Changpeng dot Fang at amd dot com>
Cc: Richard Guenther <rguenther at suse dot de>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "hubicka at ucw dot cz" <hubicka at ucw dot cz>, "rth at redhat dot com" <rth at redhat dot com>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 09:47:07 -0800
Subject: Re: [PATCH, i386 tuning] Generate 128-bit AVX by default for bdver1
References: <D4C76825A6780047854A11E93CDE84D004D3054E8E@SAUSEXMBP01.amd.com> <alpine.LNX.2.00.1102111044210.17230@zhemvz.fhfr.qr> <AANLkTiksyjz1tAwj65qYQFnSs3xA1gUwkeSvN71eMQbF@mail.gmail.com> <D4C76825A6780047854A11E93CDE84D004D3054E91@SAUSEXMBP01.amd.com>

On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Fang, Changpeng <Changpeng.Fang@amd.com> wrote:
> Thanks. I am going to do some investigation based on this patch.
>
> BTW, the biggest loser for avx256 is cactusADM (-25% compared to avx128, and even sse2).

We saw 50% speed up on cactusADM with AVX on Sandy Bridge.


H.J.

References:
- [PATCH, i386 tuning] Generate 128-bit AVX by default for bdver1
  - From: Fang, Changpeng
- Re: [PATCH, i386 tuning] Generate 128-bit AVX by default for bdver1
  - From: Richard Guenther
- Re: [PATCH, i386 tuning] Generate 128-bit AVX by default for bdver1
  - From: H.J. Lu
- RE: [PATCH, i386 tuning] Generate 128-bit AVX by default for bdver1
  - From: Fang, Changpeng

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