From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25404 invoked by alias); 19 Nov 2004 11:29:32 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 25200 invoked by uid 48); 19 Nov 2004 11:29:12 -0000 Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:29:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20041119112912.25199.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "falk at debian dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20041118235414.18557.falk@debian.org> References: <20041118235414.18557.falk@debian.org> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/18557] Inefficient code generated by -ftree-vectorize on Alpha X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg02238.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2004-11-19 11:29 ------- (In reply to comment #3) > Can we get some numbers to understand how worse we are behaving? The code size is inflated by a factor of about 3. Run time difference depends a lot on how many bytes are actually copied, how predictable the branches are etc. If I just run the test case on always the same data, which is about the best possible case, the vectorized code is 5% slower than f2. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18557