public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/30255] register spills in x87 unit need to be 80-bit, not 64
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:18:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20061219171810.7220.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-30255-12761@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>



------- Comment #10 from whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu  2006-12-19 17:18 -------
Guys,

In the interests of full disclosure, I did some quick timings on the Core2Duo,
and as I kind of suspected, scalar SSE crushed x87 there.  I was pretty sure
scalar SSE could achieve 2 flop/cycle, while Intel kept the x87 at 1
flop/cycle, and that's what my timings show.  So, it does appear likely that
the only people using the x87 in the future on the Intel will be people who
need the extra precision (and those people would really like this fix, I will
point out :).  All other Intel archs (P4, PIII, etc) do 1 flop cycle for both
scalar SSE and x87.

On the AMDs, both x87 and scalar SSE can achieve 2 flop/cycle, with x87 running
somewhat faster, with only a slight advantage in double precision, and a more
commanding one in single.  It looks like the next generation of AMDs will
increase the maximal flop rate of vector SSE, but it does not look like they
will increase the max flop rate of scalar SSE, so this may continue to be the
case going forward . . .

Cheers,
Clint


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30255


  parent reply	other threads:[~2006-12-19 17:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-12-18 20:08 [Bug target/30255] New: " whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu
2006-12-18 20:16 ` [Bug target/30255] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-12-18 20:43 ` whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu
2006-12-18 21:17 ` whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu
2006-12-18 22:04 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-12-18 22:14 ` whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu
2006-12-18 23:03 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-12-19  0:32 ` whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu
2006-12-19 14:57 ` ian at airs dot com
2006-12-19 16:04 ` whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu
2006-12-19 17:18 ` whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu [this message]
2006-12-27 16:22 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
     [not found] <bug-30255-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2014-02-16 13:13 ` jackie.rosen at hushmail dot com

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20061219171810.7220.qmail@sourceware.org \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).