This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] Fixes tree-loop-distribute-patterns issues
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: OndÅej BÃlka <neleai at seznam dot cz>
- Cc: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>, Adhemerval Zanella <azanella at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, "GNU C. Library" <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at redhat dot com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 21:07:41 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fixes tree-loop-distribute-patterns issues
- References: <51C0AFB7 dot 1060009 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <20130618205608 dot 9CCE22C0AC at topped-with-meat dot com> <51C1BFE9 dot 4070805 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <51C1CEFC dot 9000100 at redhat dot com> <51C1FE4C dot 3020400 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <20130619221130 dot 7B91A2C10E at topped-with-meat dot com> <51C31177 dot 90303 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <20130620175832 dot 0E6FA2C133 at topped-with-meat dot com> <20130620213141 dot GA4833 at domone dot kolej dot mff dot cuni dot cz> <20130620205919 dot 9156B2C135 at topped-with-meat dot com> <20130621020055 dot GA4729 at domone dot kolej dot mff dot cuni dot cz>
On 06/20/2013 10:00 PM, OndÅej BÃlka wrote:
> One solution is mandate to run benchmarks with fixed version of gcc and
> fixed flags.
That is not a bad idea...
> Second variant could be have assemblies and regeneration script that would
> be ran with specific gcc.
... and neither is that.
I see these details as things that we as a community will
need to work through as part of the refinement of the
benchmarks we use as our criteria for performance patch
acceptance.
Cheers,
Carlos.