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][RFC] 160-bits bitmap_element

From: Steven Bosscher <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>
To: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 14:04:50 +0200
Subject: Re: [patch][RFC] 160-bits bitmap_element
References: <CABu31nMK54b1=+iVxt3npXJf3642xouc0CEwu66wP9ia1QJArQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFiYyc1H-cjMgz6esM-YkpRTT_cAVo25=WZX0Q=DGJDtH7JdWg@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Richard Guenther
<richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, another effect of reducing the size of BITMAP_WORD is that
> operations are not performed in a mode optimally using CPU regs
> (did you check code generation differences on a 64bit host?).

I did, on x86_64 and on powerpc64. The effect is not dramatic, most of
these machines can perform 32 bits operations just fine (I think the
only exception would be alpha, maybe?).

Ciao!
Steven

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [patch][RFC] 160-bits bitmap_element
  - From: Richard Guenther
- Re: [patch][RFC] 160-bits bitmap_element
  - From: Jakub Jelinek

References:
- [patch][RFC] 160-bits bitmap_element
  - From: Steven Bosscher
- Re: [patch][RFC] 160-bits bitmap_element
  - From: Richard Guenther

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