From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Cc: akpm@osdl.org, Albert Cahalan <acahalan@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, s0348365@sms.ed.ac.uk,
bunk@stusta.de, mikpe@it.uu.se, torvalds@osdl.org
Subject: Re: kernel + gcc 4.1 = several problems
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 09:23:01 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ea5b255f38ef273251d6af7c8ead65fc@kernel.crashing.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070105171735.GA4745@ucw.cz>
>> For a different mailing list indeed; let me just point
>> out
>> that for certain important quite common cases it's an
>> ~50%
>> overall speedup.
>
> Hmm, what code was that? 'signed int does not wrap around' does not
> seem to provide _that_ much info...
One of the recent huge threads on the GCC dev list has a
post that says *some other* compiler gets a result like
this from this optimisation (I don't have a link to the
exact post and I don't remember the details; perhaps it
was XLC?)
Sorry if I wasn't clear enough and you understood I meant
that GCC exploits this optimisation opportunity well
enough for such nice results already.
- - -
So I searched for it anyway:
<http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-12/msg00768.html>
It looks like the result for *integer* code wasn't *all*
that dramatic a difference. Anyway, it's obvious that
the optimisation can certainly give nice results and it
wouldn't be a good idea for the Linux kernel to dismiss
it without really evaluating the impact first; and anyway,
this is for some future date, GCC-4.2 isn't here yet.
Segher
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-01-06 8:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 60+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-01-04 7:11 Albert Cahalan
2007-01-04 16:43 ` Segher Boessenkool
2007-01-04 17:04 ` Albert Cahalan
2007-01-04 17:24 ` Segher Boessenkool
2007-01-04 17:47 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-01-04 18:53 ` Segher Boessenkool
2007-01-04 19:10 ` Al Viro
2007-01-05 17:17 ` Pavel Machek
2007-01-06 8:23 ` Segher Boessenkool [this message]
2007-01-04 17:37 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-01-04 18:34 ` Segher Boessenkool
2007-01-04 22:02 ` Geert Bosch
2007-01-07 4:25 ` Denis Vlasenko
2007-01-07 4:45 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-01-07 5:26 ` Jeff Garzik
2007-01-07 15:10 ` Segher Boessenkool
2007-01-26 22:05 ` Michael K. Edwards
2007-01-04 18:08 ` Andreas Schwab
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2007-01-03 2:12 Mikael Pettersson
2007-01-03 2:20 ` Alistair John Strachan
2007-01-05 15:53 ` Alistair John Strachan
2007-01-05 16:02 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-01-05 16:19 ` Alistair John Strachan
2007-01-05 16:49 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-01-07 0:36 ` Pavel Machek
2007-01-07 0:57 ` Alistair John Strachan
2007-01-03 5:55 ` Willy Tarreau
2007-01-03 10:29 ` Alan
2007-01-03 10:32 ` Grzegorz Kulewski
2007-01-03 11:51 ` Jeff Garzik
2007-01-03 12:44 ` Alan
2007-01-03 13:32 ` Arjan van de Ven
2007-01-03 13:58 ` Jakub Jelinek
2007-01-03 14:28 ` Alan
2007-01-03 16:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-01-03 16:03 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-01-03 17:01 ` l.genoni
2007-01-03 17:45 ` Tim Schmielau
2007-01-03 20:24 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-01-03 17:06 ` l.genoni
2007-01-03 17:53 ` Mariusz Kozlowski
2007-01-03 19:47 ` Denis Vlasenko
2007-01-03 20:38 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-01-03 21:48 ` Denis Vlasenko
2007-01-03 22:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-01-03 21:44 ` Thomas Sailer
2007-01-03 22:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-01-04 3:08 ` Zou, Nanhai
2007-01-04 15:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-12-20 14:21 Oops in 2.6.19.1 Alistair John Strachan
2006-12-30 16:59 ` Alistair John Strachan
2006-12-31 16:27 ` Adrian Bunk
2006-12-31 16:55 ` Alistair John Strachan
2007-01-02 21:10 ` kernel + gcc 4.1 = several problems Adrian Bunk
2007-01-02 21:56 ` Alistair John Strachan
2007-01-02 22:06 ` D. Hazelton
2007-01-02 23:24 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-01-02 23:41 ` D. Hazelton
2007-01-03 2:05 ` Horst H. von Brand
2007-01-02 22:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-01-02 23:18 ` Alistair John Strachan
2007-01-03 1:43 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-01-02 22:01 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-01-02 23:09 ` David Rientjes
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=ea5b255f38ef273251d6af7c8ead65fc@kernel.crashing.org \
--to=segher@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=acahalan@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=bunk@stusta.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mikpe@it.uu.se \
--cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=s0348365@sms.ed.ac.uk \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.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
Powered by JetHome