From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9048 invoked by alias); 10 Aug 2004 14:09:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 9034 invoked by uid 48); 10 Aug 2004 14:09:02 -0000 Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 14:09:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20040810140902.9033.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "falk at debian dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20040810134244.16962.tomstdenis@iahu.ca> References: <20040810134244.16962.tomstdenis@iahu.ca> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/16962] loop unrolling with x86-64 asm not efficient X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00798.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2004-08-10 14:08 ------- Please use the attachment function for large files in the future. Note also we don't want assembly output anyway (as stated on http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html). Loop work is currently only being done at the lno-branch. It would be nice if you could test it there. Also, this way of unrolling loops doesn't seem fundamentally wrong to me Can you provide performance numbers that show that it is worse? -- What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Component|c |tree-optimization GCC build triplet|gcc version 3.4.1 (Gentoo |x86_86-linux |Linux 3.4.1, ssp-3.4-2, pie-| |8.7.6.3) | GCC host triplet|Linux timmy 2.6.7-gentoo-r11|x86_86-linux |#1 Thu Aug 5 01:49:49 UTC | |2004 x86_ | GCC target triplet|gcc version 3.4.1 (Gentoo |x86_86-linux |Linux 3.4.1, ssp-3.4-2, pie-| |8.7.6.3) | Keywords| |missed-optimization http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16962