![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
>> 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 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2007-01-06 08:27 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||