This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: RFC: [ARM] Disable peeling

From: Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>
To: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
Cc: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>, Christophe Lyon <christophe dot lyon at linaro dot org>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 18:10:57 +0100
Subject: Re: RFC: [ARM] Disable peeling
References: <CAKdteOZb66r_0t1LLUdToQkJFo8UnX8f671pduuc4i7vOcL6qQ@mail.gmail.com> <50C227C5.4010601@arm.com> <CAFiYyc2LNa=MRAn5S0CZV_=Ds0SAsvqH9w1MOi7of1GFhp=ABQ@mail.gmail.com>

> 
> I agree that this is a sledgehammer.  If aligned/unaligned loads/stores have
> the same cost then reflect that in the vectorized stmt cost hook.  If that
> alone does not prevent peeling for alignment to happen then the fix is to
> not consider doing peeling for alignment if aligned/unaligned costs are the
> same, not adding a new hook.

Note that I think Core has similar characteristics - at least for string operations
it fares well with unalignes accesses.

Honza

Follow-Ups:
- Re: RFC: [ARM] Disable peeling
  - From: Andi Kleen

References:
- RFC: [ARM] Disable peeling
  - From: Christophe Lyon
- Re: RFC: [ARM] Disable peeling
  - From: Richard Earnshaw
- Re: RFC: [ARM] Disable peeling
  - From: Richard Biener

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