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 kernel + gcc 4.1 = several problems 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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.