[google gcc-4_8] Tree Loop Unrolling - Relax code size increase with -O2
Xinliang David Li
Tue Jan 21 22:49:00 GMT 2014
I think it might be better to introduce a new parameter for max peel
insn at O2 (e.g, call it MAX_O2_COMPLETELY_PEEL_INSN or
MAX_DEFAULT_...), and use the same logic in your patch to override the
MAX_COMPLETELY_PEELED_INSN parameter at O2).
By so doing, we don't need to have a hard coded factor of 2.
In the longer run, we really need better cost/benefit analysis, but
that is independent.
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Sriraman Tallam <email@example.com> wrote:
> Currently, tree unrolling pass(cunroll) does not allow any code
> size growth in O2 mode. Code size growth is permitted only if O3 or
> funroll-loops/fpeel-loops is used. I have created a patch to allow
> partial code size increase in O2 mode. With funroll-loops the maximum
> allowed code growth is 400 unrolled insns. I have set it to 200
> unrolled insns in O2 mode. This patch improves an image processing
> benchmark by 20%. It improves most benchmarks by 1-2%. The code size
> increase is <1% for all the benchmarks except the image processing
> benchmark which increases by 6% (perf improves by 20%).
> I am working on getting this patch reviewed for trunk. Here is
> the disussion on this:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg02643.html I have
> incorporated the comments on making the patch simpler. I will
> follow-up on that patch to trunk by also getting data on limiting
> complete peeling with O2.
> Is this ok for the google branch?
More information about the Gcc-patches