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 i386 AVX512] [81/n] Add new built-ins.


On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Kirill Yukhin <kirill.yukhin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 21 Oct 18:47, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
>> On 21 Oct 16:20, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 06:08:15PM +0400, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
>> > > --- a/gcc/tree.h
>> > > +++ b/gcc/tree.h
>> > > @@ -2334,6 +2334,10 @@ extern void decl_value_expr_insert (tree, tree);
>> > >  #define DECL_COMDAT(NODE) \
>> > >    (DECL_WITH_VIS_CHECK (NODE)->decl_with_vis.comdat_flag)
>> > >
>> > > + /* In a FUNCTION_DECL indicates that a static chain is needed.  */
>> > > +#define DECL_STATIC_CHAIN(NODE) \
>> > > +  (DECL_WITH_VIS_CHECK (NODE)->decl_with_vis.regdecl_flag)
>> > > +
>> >
>> > I would say that you should still keep it together with the FUNCTION_DECL
>> > macros and use FUNCTION_DECL_CHECK there, to make it clear we don't want
>> > the macro to be used on VAR_DECLs etc.
>> > So just s/function_decl/decl_with_vis/ in the definition IMHO.
>> Yeah, sure.
>>
>> > Also, with so many added builtins, how does it affect
>> > int i;
>> > compilation time at -O0?  If it is significant, maybe it is highest time to
>> > make the md builtin decl building more lazy.
>> I've tried this:
>> $ echo "int i;" > test.c
>> $ time for i in `seq 10000` ; do ./build-x86_64-linux/gcc/xgcc -B./build-x86_64-linux/gcc -O0 -S test.c ; done
>>
>> For trunk w/ and w/o the patch applied.
>> Got 106.86 vs. 106.85 secs. which looks equal.
> Retested on clear machine (SandyBridge). Got 189 vs. 192 secs., i.e. ~1%

Can you test with -mavx512 (or whatever enables the builtins?)

Richard.


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