From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-381434-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 10747 invoked by alias); 22 Oct 2014 08:09:16 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 10738 invoked by uid 89); 22 Oct 2014 08:09:16 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO: mail-wg0-f49.google.com
Received: from mail-wg0-f49.google.com (HELO mail-wg0-f49.google.com) (74.125.82.49) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 08:09:15 +0000
Received: by mail-wg0-f49.google.com with SMTP id x12so3063700wgg.8        for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 01:09:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.149.169 with SMTP id ub9mr3666658wib.73.1413965352082; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 01:09:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.20.74 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 01:09:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20141021150826.GD22695@msticlxl57.ims.intel.com>
References: <20141020134122.GB12661@msticlxl57.ims.intel.com>	<20141020135019.GP10376@tucnak.redhat.com>	<20141021140805.GA22695@msticlxl57.ims.intel.com>	<20141021142015.GY10376@tucnak.redhat.com>	<20141021144749.GC22695@msticlxl57.ims.intel.com>	<20141021150826.GD22695@msticlxl57.ims.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 08:18:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAFiYyc3ubjxjcAwrH-X2=DVP2B5VzL9W2XFpy3wjWtH_O4oLBw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH i386 AVX512] [81/n] Add new built-ins.
From: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
To: Kirill Yukhin <kirill.yukhin@gmail.com>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>, 	Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2014-10/txt/msg02209.txt.bz2

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.