* [Bug tree-optimization/17050] Performance pessimisation as compared to GCC 3.4
2004-08-16 15:29 [Bug tree-optimization/17050] New: Performance pessimisation as compared to GCC 3.4 coyote at coyotegulch dot com
@ 2004-08-16 15:35 ` coyote at coyotegulch dot com
2004-08-16 16:52 ` [Bug tree-optimization/17050] [3.5 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: coyote at coyotegulch dot com @ 2004-08-16 15:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From coyote at coyotegulch dot com 2004-08-16 15:35 -------
Created an attachment (id=6942)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=6942&action=view)
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17050
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/17050] [3.5 Regression] Performance pessimisation as compared to GCC 3.4
2004-08-16 15:29 [Bug tree-optimization/17050] New: Performance pessimisation as compared to GCC 3.4 coyote at coyotegulch dot com
2004-08-16 15:35 ` [Bug tree-optimization/17050] " coyote at coyotegulch dot com
@ 2004-08-16 16:52 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-09-01 6:27 ` law at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-08-16 16:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |missed-optimization
Summary|Performance pessimisation as|[3.5 Regression] Performance
|compared to GCC 3.4 |pessimisation as compared to
| |GCC 3.4
Target Milestone|--- |3.5.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17050
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/17050] [3.5 Regression] Performance pessimisation as compared to GCC 3.4
2004-08-16 15:29 [Bug tree-optimization/17050] New: Performance pessimisation as compared to GCC 3.4 coyote at coyotegulch dot com
2004-08-16 15:35 ` [Bug tree-optimization/17050] " coyote at coyotegulch dot com
2004-08-16 16:52 ` [Bug tree-optimization/17050] [3.5 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-09-01 6:27 ` law at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-09-03 22:09 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: law at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-09-01 6:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |law at redhat dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17050
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/17050] [3.5 Regression] Performance pessimisation as compared to GCC 3.4
2004-08-16 15:29 [Bug tree-optimization/17050] New: Performance pessimisation as compared to GCC 3.4 coyote at coyotegulch dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2004-09-01 6:27 ` law at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-09-03 22:09 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-09-03 22:19 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-09-03 22:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-09-03 22:08 -------
Note that one needs to use -lm -lrt to compile the test case.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17050
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/17050] [3.5 Regression] Performance pessimisation as compared to GCC 3.4
2004-08-16 15:29 [Bug tree-optimization/17050] New: Performance pessimisation as compared to GCC 3.4 coyote at coyotegulch dot com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2004-09-03 22:09 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-09-03 22:19 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-09-08 17:50 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-09-03 22:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-09-03 22:19 -------
Hmm and also -std=c99
Hmm, I would certainly be interested in learning what kind of system you are testing on. On
my Opteron I get the following,
GCC 3.3-hammer (SUSE9 system compiler):
run time: 96.195581
GCC 3.5-20040903 (CVS HEAD)
run time: 110.353146
So, there is a regression, but not from 12s to >30s. What flags did you use??
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17050
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/17050] [3.5 Regression] Performance pessimisation as compared to GCC 3.4
2004-08-16 15:29 [Bug tree-optimization/17050] New: Performance pessimisation as compared to GCC 3.4 coyote at coyotegulch dot com
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2004-09-03 22:19 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-09-08 17:50 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-11-26 22:33 ` [Bug tree-optimization/17050] [4.0 " dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-09-08 17:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-09-08 17:50 -------
Can you try again as IV-OPT should have improved the preformance?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17050
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/17050] [4.0 Regression] Performance pessimisation as compared to GCC 3.4
2004-08-16 15:29 [Bug tree-optimization/17050] New: Performance pessimisation as compared to GCC 3.4 coyote at coyotegulch dot com
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2004-09-08 17:50 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-11-26 22:33 ` dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-11-26 22:48 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
2004-11-26 22:51 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-11-26 22:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-26 22:33 -------
On my pentium-m, 3.4 gets:
dberlin@linux:~> gcc -O3 -std=c99 coyotebench_mole.i -ffast-math -lrt -lm
dberlin@linux:~> time ./a.out
run time: 23.438668
real 0m24.187s
user 0m23.147s
sys 0m0.368s
and the tree-cleanup-branch gets
dberlin@linux:~/gcc-tcb/build/gcc> ./xgcc -B./ -std=c99 -O3 -ffast-math
~/coyotebench_mole.i -lrt -lm
timdberlin@linux:~/gcc-tcb/build/gcc> time ./a.out
run time: 8.626844
real 0m8.919s
user 0m8.803s
sys 0m0.039s
I haven't redone mainline yet.
But it's good to know that TCB has this problem fixed, which means it will
likely be gone in 4.1 if not sooner.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17050
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/17050] [4.0 Regression] Performance pessimisation as compared to GCC 3.4
2004-08-16 15:29 [Bug tree-optimization/17050] New: Performance pessimisation as compared to GCC 3.4 coyote at coyotegulch dot com
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2004-11-26 22:33 ` [Bug tree-optimization/17050] [4.0 " dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-11-26 22:48 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
2004-11-26 22:51 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pcarlini at suse dot de @ 2004-11-26 22:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2004-11-26 22:48 -------
Seems fixed in mainline too. On my P4-2400:
4.0.0 20041126
--------------
run time: 8.684465
8.810u 0.010s 0:08.86 99.5% 0+0k 0+0io 133pf+0w
3.4.3
-----
run time: 35.656412
36.200u 0.010s 0:36.37 99.5% 0+0k 0+0io 133pf+0w
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17050
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/17050] [4.0 Regression] Performance pessimisation as compared to GCC 3.4
2004-08-16 15:29 [Bug tree-optimization/17050] New: Performance pessimisation as compared to GCC 3.4 coyote at coyotegulch dot com
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2004-11-26 22:48 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
@ 2004-11-26 22:51 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: giovannibajo at libero dot it @ 2004-11-26 22:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-11-26 22:51 -------
Fixed then.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17050
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread