Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
Anybody using GCC's "Graphite"?
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1590
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 9:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
dreadlorde wrote:
Why are you enabling loop optimizations? Are you on a fucking 286?

That's on a Pentium-III.

Why not enable loop optimizations? They are dynamically based on the hardware that's present, and only performed if likely to achieve a benefit.

dreadlorde, should I not be using them? Tell me what you were thinking, because I don't know what I'm doing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
saellaven
Guru
Guru


Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 455

PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 4:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
saellaven wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:


But rebuilding cloog-ppl failed with "sorry, unimplemented: Graphite loop optimizations cannot be used". So I am going to try a rebuild of GCC first.


I disabled the graphite CFLAGS and then rebuilt cloog-ppl

It's kind of sad that graphite wouldn't work on cloog-ppl, since cloog-ppl is used by graphite. :?

Although... thinking back.... I seem to remember that the graphite folks were talking about switching to a different implementation of cloog (something non-ppl), but I want to say that wasn't coming until a later release of GCC.

Edit: okay, even after rebuilding ppl and gcc, cloog-ppl fails with "sorry, unimplemented: Graphite loop optimizations cannot be used". So I am going to set package-specific CFLAGS for it.


cloog-ppl does compile with graphite CFLAGS, but not if graphite is currently broken due to a ppl update. Here's what I did

emerge ppl
remove graphite CFLAGS
emerge cloog-ppl
set graphite CFLAGS
emerge cloog-ppl

it'd be nice if emerge handled it more gracefully by itself, but I understand we're using unsupported software and CFLAGS at this point
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1590
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 5:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From what you are saying, cloog-ppl has to be built first without graphite loop optimizations before it can be built with them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
saellaven
Guru
Guru


Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 455

PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 6:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
From what you are saying, cloog-ppl has to be built first without graphite loop optimizations before it can be built with them.


You have to have a fully functional gcc to be able to compile with graphite extensions... the graphite extensions are dependent upon a runtime library, so with a broken cloog-ppl, gcc isn't fully functional, and thus graphite doesn't work.

So, if you have another gcc installed that isn't broken, you could use that to compile cloog-ppl with graphite the first time rather than having to compile it without graphite first and then with graphite again.

It seems like it would be easier to just make ppl/cloog-ppl part of gcc since they are so interdependent itself but I'm not a gcc dev.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dreadlorde
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 243
Location: /adm/timezone/US_Michigan

PostPosted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 11:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:

dreadlorde, should I not be using them? Tell me what you were thinking, because I don't know what I'm doing.
I'm just skeptical of the benefit they will bring on modern hardware. Afaik, loop unrolling doesn't make that much of a difference anymore.
_________________
Ludwig von Mises Institute
Quote:
I am not to be a shepherd, I am not to be a grave-digger. No longer will I speak to the people; for the last time I have spoken to the dead.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pigeon768
l33t
l33t


Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 675

PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 12:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dreadlorde wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
dreadlorde, should I not be using them? Tell me what you were thinking, because I don't know what I'm doing.
I'm just skeptical of the benefit they will bring on modern hardware. Afaik, loop unrolling doesn't make that much of a difference anymore.
The graphite optimizations are unrelated to loop unrolling.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dreadlorde
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 243
Location: /adm/timezone/US_Michigan

PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 5:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pigeon768 wrote:
dreadlorde wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
dreadlorde, should I not be using them? Tell me what you were thinking, because I don't know what I'm doing.
I'm just skeptical of the benefit they will bring on modern hardware. Afaik, loop unrolling doesn't make that much of a difference anymore.
The graphite optimizations are unrelated to loop unrolling.
I know, I was talking about loop unrolling and similar optimizations. BK mentioned them earlier.
_________________
Ludwig von Mises Institute
Quote:
I am not to be a shepherd, I am not to be a grave-digger. No longer will I speak to the people; for the last time I have spoken to the dead.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum