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] |
On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 01:11:26PM +0100, Tobias Schlüter wrote: > Tobias.Schlueter@Physik.Uni-Muenchen.DE wrote: > > Patch to the testsuite below. Tested with a 'make check-fortran' > > and visual inspection of the testsuite log. This removes the run > > with -funroll-all-loops, as this is a synonym for -funroll-loops > > according to the documentation. I also I'm not so sure of that, the docs say: -funroll-loops Unroll loops whose number of iterations can be determined at compile time or upon entry to the loop. -funroll-loops implies both -fstrength-reduce and -frerun-cse-after-loop. This option makes code larger, and may or may not make it run faster. -funroll-all-loops Unroll all loops, even if their number of iterations is uncertain when the loop is entered. This usually makes programs run more slowly. -funroll-all-loops implies the same options as -funroll-loops, It clearly seems that -funroll-all-loops is different. I think the statement that it implies the same options as -funroll-loops refers to the -fstrength-reduce and -frerun-cse-after-loop, not that the entire option is equivalent. That being said, perhaps we should test with -funroll-all-loops instead of -funroll-loops, since it seems that it applies to all situations where the normal unroller is used and then some. -- Janne Blomqvist
Attachment:
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |