<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 11/18/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Mathieu Bouchard</b> <<a href="mailto:matju@artengine.ca">matju@artengine.ca</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:<br><br>> I really doubt that the gcc devs put a lot of effort into something that<br>> has no effect. Perhaps not for Pd, that may be true. But they are<br>> talking about vectorizing loops, it may not be the best thing to
<br>> vectorize, but there are definitely vectorizable loops in Pd.<br><br>perhaps it would be a good start to reimplement newbytes(n) using<br>memalign(16,n) instead of malloc(n).</blockquote><div><br>Fix the loop sizes to a literal so the compiler has some clue as to how the loop is structured. The compiler will not figure out passing a runtime parameter in for the loop size.
<br><br>It should be noted that most 'benchmarks' for the auto-vector features are heavily rigged and not like anything used in the average application. See further <a href="http://www.spec.org/">http://www.spec.org/</a>
<br><br><br><br></div><br></div><br>