This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [patch][x86] -march=icelake
- From: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "Koval, Julia" <julia dot koval at intel dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Kirill Yukhin <kirill dot yukhin at gmail dot com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 12:55:49 +0100
- Subject: Re: [patch][x86] -march=icelake
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <4E89A029A0F8D443B436A5167BA3C53F42ACE34D@IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.com> <CAFULd4YbezpXsDTgOohBvY5u68tTb0vtL5bTBVtUcV4owJ4b9Q@mail.gmail.com> <4E89A029A0F8D443B436A5167BA3C53F8A45EE15@IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.com> <CAFULd4anDT-gLMFv_YcH8+D_ZdUa5jZnpuxH4GOskP992UKNXA@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Koval, Julia <julia.koval@intel.com> wrote:
>> Hi, I tried to replace 2 flags variable with c++ bitset(in patch attached). What do you think?
>
> Hm, I'm not a c++ person, but I wonder about overhead and performance
> impact of this change. Maybe [] operator could be used instead of a
> dynamic handling here. Please discuss with a c++ person to find out
> the most appropriate approach.
The natural GCC data structure is a sbitmap ... I'd rather not use <bitset>
given we have a GCC variant.
>>> Please add these options first.
>> 2 options left(they are under Kirill's review currently), I'll add PTAs for them to the patch, as soon as they will be commited.
>
> Actually, let's wait for these 2 options to be reviewed and committed
> first, and after that introduce -march=icelake handling.
>
> Uros.