Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "72.08".
Did you mean:
72.0
2011 Oct 29
0
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] BasicBlock Autovectorization Pass
On Sat, 2011-10-29 at 15:16 -0500, Hal Finkel wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-10-29 at 14:02 -0500, Hal Finkel wrote:
> > On Sat, 2011-10-29 at 12:30 -0500, Hal Finkel wrote:
> > > Ralf, et al.,
> > >
> > > Attached is the latest version of my autovectorization patch. llvmdev
> > > has been CC'd (as had been suggested to me); this e-mail contains
> >
2011 Oct 29
4
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] BasicBlock Autovectorization Pass
On Sat, 2011-10-29 at 14:02 -0500, Hal Finkel wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-10-29 at 12:30 -0500, Hal Finkel wrote:
> > Ralf, et al.,
> >
> > Attached is the latest version of my autovectorization patch. llvmdev
> > has been CC'd (as had been suggested to me); this e-mail contains
> > additional benchmark results.
> >
> > First, these are preliminary
2011 Oct 29
0
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] BasicBlock Autovectorization Pass
On Sat, 2011-10-29 at 12:30 -0500, Hal Finkel wrote:
> Ralf, et al.,
>
> Attached is the latest version of my autovectorization patch. llvmdev
> has been CC'd (as had been suggested to me); this e-mail contains
> additional benchmark results.
>
> First, these are preliminary results because I did not do the things
> necessary to make them real (explicitly quiet the
2011 Oct 29
4
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] BasicBlock Autovectorization Pass
Ralf, et al.,
Attached is the latest version of my autovectorization patch. llvmdev
has been CC'd (as had been suggested to me); this e-mail contains
additional benchmark results.
First, these are preliminary results because I did not do the things
necessary to make them real (explicitly quiet the machine, bind the
processes to one cpu, etc.). But they should be good enough for
discussion.