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] |
2010/11/10 Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz>: >> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 7:18 AM, Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz> wrote: >> >> The complette unrilling seems sane here. >> >> This seems like good idea to me and i am not quite sure why 32bit compilation does not do the >> >> transofrm. I will check now. >> > >> > The reason is word size. ?We compute move costs based on this, so vectorized moves are more expensive >> > in 32bit cost model than 64bit. >> > Perhaps there is way to hook vectorizer cost model in here? >> > >> >> Shouldn't we use vector size to compute move cost for vector move? > > That would work for me. ?I am not terribly familiar with vector costs here, could you try to patch > estimate_move_cost in tree-inline.c? > We are very simplistic here assuming that pretty much all operations have cost of 1, so I guess > making all vector moves to have cost 1 is fine. The main reason for that function is to catch large > structure copies. > How about this patch? -- H.J. --- gcc/ 2010-11-10 H.J. Lu <hongjiu.lu@intel.com> PR tree-optimization/46414 * tree-inline.c (estimate_move_cost): Check preferred vector mode for vector type. gcc/testsuite/ 2010-11-10 H.J. Lu <hongjiu.lu@intel.com> PR tree-optimization/46414 * gcc.target/i386/recip-vec-sqrtf-avx.c: Update for loop unrolling.
Attachment:
gcc-pr46414-1.patch
Description: Text document
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |