similar to: Aggressive optimization opportunity

Restrict is supported by Clang for C++ via __restrict__, so it seems strange to block using this proposed option for C++. That said, this kind of option can be dangerous and should come with a suitable warning. We’ve had a similar option and in practice it’s been used to hunt for performance gains (i.e., turn it on and see what happens), but just because the code runs faster and produces the

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 02:41:34PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:28:45AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:54:01AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:24:32AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > > > See my earlier reply [1] (but also, your WRC Linux example looks more > > > > like a

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 02:41:34PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:28:45AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:54:01AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:24:32AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > > > See my earlier reply [1] (but also, your WRC Linux example looks more > > > > like a

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:54:01AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:24:32AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 02:55:10PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 01:36:50PM -0800, Leonid Yegoshin wrote: > > > > On 01/14/2016 01:29 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > > > > >

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:54:01AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:24:32AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 02:55:10PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 01:36:50PM -0800, Leonid Yegoshin wrote: > > > > On 01/14/2016 01:29 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > > > > >

Sadly the latest optimization broke completely everything. The asm code isn't gas compliant. the libFLAC linker script has a typo, disabling the asm optimization and/or altivec won't let a correct build anyway. Instant fixes for the asm stuff: sed -i -e"s:;:\#:" on the lpc_asm.s to load address instead of addis+ori you could use lis and la and PLEASE use the @l(register)

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:10:10PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 05:06:46PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 02:41:34PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:28:45AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:54:01AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > On

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:10:10PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 05:06:46PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 02:41:34PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:28:45AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:54:01AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > On

On Tue, 4 May 2004, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Tue, 4 May 2004, Chris Lattner wrote: > > I suspect that a large reason that LLVM does worst than a native C > > compiler with the CBE+GCC is that LLVM generates very low-level C code, > > and I'm not convinced that GCC is doing a very good job (ie, without > > syntactic loops). > > Yup, this is EXACTLY what is

On Tue, 4 May 2004, Patrick Flanagan wrote: > I was able to run through all the C/C++ benchmarks in SPEC using LLVM. > I'm on OS X 10.3.3. I did a quick comparison between LLVM (latest from > CVS as of 4/27) and gcc 3.3 (Apple's build 20030304). For simplicity's > sake, the only flag I used was -O3 for each compiler and I was using > the C backend to generate native

I was able to run through all the C/C++ benchmarks in SPEC using LLVM. I'm on OS X 10.3.3. I did a quick comparison between LLVM (latest from CVS as of 4/27) and gcc 3.3 (Apple's build 20030304). For simplicity's sake, the only flag I used was -O3 for each compiler and I was using the C backend to generate native code for PPC. Most of the LLVM results were close to gcc

On Tue, 2012-05-01 at 19:58 -0500, Peter Bergner wrote: > On Tue, 2012-05-01 at 17:47 -0500, Hal Finkel wrote: > > By default it should build for > > whatever the current host is (no special flags required). To > > specifically build for something else, use: > > -ccc-host-triple powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu > > or > > -ccc-host-triple

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 02:55:10PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 01:36:50PM -0800, Leonid Yegoshin wrote: > > On 01/14/2016 01:29 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > >>On 01/14/2016 12:34 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > >>> > > >>>The WRC+addr+addr is OK because data dependencies are not required to be >

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 02:55:10PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 01:36:50PM -0800, Leonid Yegoshin wrote: > > On 01/14/2016 01:29 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > >>On 01/14/2016 12:34 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > >>> > > >>>The WRC+addr+addr is OK because data dependencies are not required to be >

On Tue, 4 May 2004, Chris Lattner wrote: > I suspect that a large reason that LLVM does worst than a native C > compiler with the CBE+GCC is that LLVM generates very low-level C code, > and I'm not convinced that GCC is doing a very good job (ie, without > syntactic loops). Yup, this is EXACTLY what is going on. I took this very simple C function: int Array[1000]; void test(int

On Tue, 2012-05-01 at 17:47 -0500, Hal Finkel wrote: > By default it should build for > whatever the current host is (no special flags required). To > specifically build for something else, use: > -ccc-host-triple powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu > or > -ccc-host-triple powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu So LLVM isn't biarch capable? Meaning one LLVM compiler cannot generate both

Add PowerPC 64bit little endian support. Signed-off-by: Anton Blanchard <anton at samba.org> --- Makefile | 7 +++++-- usr/klibc/arch/ppc64/MCONFIG | 4 ++-- usr/klibc/arch/ppc64/crt0.S | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++----------- usr/klibc/arch/ppc64/setjmp.S | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- usr/klibc/arch/ppc64/sysstub.ph | 45

On Tue, 01 May 2012 17:23:07 -0500 Peter Bergner <bergner at vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > On Tue, 2012-05-01 at 16:06 -0500, Hal Finkel wrote: > > LLVM/clang now will build in the normal way (./configure; make > > install) on PPC (you'll need at least the 3.1 release candidate (or > > trunk)). I generally build on my PPC64 hosts with: > > make ENABLE_OPTIMIZED=1

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:16:09PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:03:22PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 04:42:43PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 01:58:53PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > PPC Overlapping Group-B sets version 4 > > > > "" > > > > (*

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:16:09PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:03:22PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 04:42:43PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 01:58:53PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > PPC Overlapping Group-B sets version 4 > > > > "" > > > > (*