public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug target/32086] New: 10% to 20% Performance Regression Between 4.1.3 and 4.3
@ 2007-05-25 17:10 burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-09-11 11:57 ` [Bug target/32086] [4.3 Regression] " jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (16 more replies)
0 siblings, 17 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-05-25 17:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
The program induct.f90 of the Polyhedron testsuite,
http://www.polyhedron.co.uk/pb05/polyhedron_benchmark_suite.html, runs about
10% slower under 4.3 than under 4.1.3 (20070430 prerelease SUSE Linux).
A cut-down testcase "test2.f90 (attachment 13611 of PR 32084) shows the same
result. At least for the testcase, the original tree is almost identical for
4.3 and 4.1.3 which means that the difference must be the middle or backend.
Timings (w/o "volatile"):
a) gfortran -march=opteron -ffast-math -funroll-loops -ftree-vectorize
-ftree-loop-linear -msse3 -O3
induct.f90: 51.65 [100%] vs 46.94 [ 90%] for gfortran 4.3 vs. 4.1.3
test2.f90: 4.60 [100%] vs 4.18 [ 91%]
b) gfortran -m32 -march=opteron -ffast-math -funroll-loops -ftree-vectorize
-ftree-loop-linear -O3
induct.f90: 61.41 [100%] vs 46.94 [ 76%]
test2.f90: 5.45 [100%] vs 4.54 [ 83%]
c) gfortran -m32 -march=opteron -ffast-math -funroll-loops -ftree-vectorize
-ftree-loop-linear -msse3 -mfpmath=sse -O3
induct.f90: 46.12 [100%] vs 46.94 [102%] (4.3 is better :-)
test2.f90: 4.14 [100%] vs 3.96 [ 96%]
(For the other polyhedron test cases, the performance loss is less: tfft 4%
slower, protein 3%, doduc 3%, channel 2%; in total 4.3 is faster, for fatigue
4.1.3 takes twice as long as 4.3. See:
http://physik.fu-berlin.de/~tburnus/gcc-trunk/benchmark/#rt)
--
Summary: 10% to 20% Performance Regression Between 4.1.3 and 4.3
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC target triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
OtherBugsDependingO 32084
nThis:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32086
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/32086] [4.3 Regression] 10% to 20% Performance Regression Between 4.1.3 and 4.3
2007-05-25 17:10 [Bug target/32086] New: 10% to 20% Performance Regression Between 4.1.3 and 4.3 burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-09-11 11:57 ` jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-10-10 17:45 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-09-11 11:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|10% to 20% Performance |[4.3 Regression] 10% to 20%
|Regression Between 4.1.3 and|Performance Regression
|4.3 |Between 4.1.3 and 4.3
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32086
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/32086] [4.3 Regression] 10% to 20% Performance Regression Between 4.1.3 and 4.3
2007-05-25 17:10 [Bug target/32086] New: 10% to 20% Performance Regression Between 4.1.3 and 4.3 burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-09-11 11:57 ` [Bug target/32086] [4.3 Regression] " jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-10-10 17:45 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-11-29 8:09 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (14 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-10-10 17:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32086
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/32086] [4.3 Regression] 10% to 20% Performance Regression Between 4.1.3 and 4.3
2007-05-25 17:10 [Bug target/32086] New: 10% to 20% Performance Regression Between 4.1.3 and 4.3 burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-09-11 11:57 ` [Bug target/32086] [4.3 Regression] " jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-10-10 17:45 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-11-29 8:09 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2007-11-30 5:41 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: ubizjak at gmail dot com @ 2007-11-29 8:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2007-11-29 08:09 -------
(In reply to comment #0)
> b) gfortran -m32 -march=opteron -ffast-math -funroll-loops -ftree-vectorize
> -ftree-loop-linear -O3
>
> induct.f90: 61.41 [100%] vs 46.94 [ 76%]
> test2.f90: 5.45 [100%] vs 4.54 [ 83%]
I have run the test compiled with above options, with and without
-fvect-cost-model, but on Xeon 3.2G in 32bit mode:
w/o -fvect-cost-model:
user 1m40.906s
w/ -fvect-cost-model:
user 0m46.439s
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32086
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/32086] [4.3 Regression] 10% to 20% Performance Regression Between 4.1.3 and 4.3
2007-05-25 17:10 [Bug target/32086] New: 10% to 20% Performance Regression Between 4.1.3 and 4.3 burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2007-11-29 8:09 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
@ 2007-11-30 5:41 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
2007-11-30 6:42 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (12 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: bonzini at gnu dot org @ 2007-11-30 5:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2007-11-30 05:41 -------
What were the benchmarks where the cost model was slower?
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |bonzini at gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32086
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/32086] [4.3 Regression] 10% to 20% Performance Regression Between 4.1.3 and 4.3
2007-05-25 17:10 [Bug target/32086] New: 10% to 20% Performance Regression Between 4.1.3 and 4.3 burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2007-11-30 5:41 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
@ 2007-11-30 6:42 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2007-11-30 7:17 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: ubizjak at gmail dot com @ 2007-11-30 6:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2007-11-30 06:42 -------
(In reply to comment #1)
> w/ -fvect-cost-model:
> user 0m46.439s
Looking a bit into generated code, it looks that -fect-cost-model effectively
disables all interesting vectorizations, effectively -fno-tree-vectorize.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32086
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/32086] [4.3 Regression] 10% to 20% Performance Regression Between 4.1.3 and 4.3
2007-05-25 17:10 [Bug target/32086] New: 10% to 20% Performance Regression Between 4.1.3 and 4.3 burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2007-11-30 6:42 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
@ 2007-11-30 7:17 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
2007-11-30 10:27 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (10 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: bonzini at gnu dot org @ 2007-11-30 7:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2007-11-30 07:17 -------
So -fvect-cost-model is doing its job. The vectorizations must not be
profitable, or are they?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32086
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/32086] [4.3 Regression] 10% to 20% Performance Regression Between 4.1.3 and 4.3
2007-05-25 17:10 [Bug target/32086] New: 10% to 20% Performance Regression Between 4.1.3 and 4.3 burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2007-11-30 7:17 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
@ 2007-11-30 10:27 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2007-11-30 10:59 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: ubizjak at gmail dot com @ 2007-11-30 10:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2007-11-30 10:27 -------
gfortran -march=opteron -ffast-math -funroll-loops -ftree-loop-linear -msse3
-O3 -mfpmath=sse induct.f90:
user 1m32.226s
gfortran -march=opteron -ffast-math -funroll-loops -ftree-loop-linear -msse3
-O3 -mfpmath=sse -fno-tree-vectorize induct.f90
user 0m58.492s
fortran -march=opteron -ffast-math -funroll-loops -ftree-loop-linear -msse3 -O3
-mfpmath=387 induct.f90
user 1m40.906s
gfortran -march=opteron -ffast-math -funroll-loops -ftree-loop-linear -msse3
-O3 -mfpmath=387 -fno-tree-vectorize induct.f90
user 0m46.439s
gfortran -march=opteron -ffast-math -funroll-loops -ftree-loop-linear -msse3
-O3 -mfpmath=sse -fvect-cost-model induct.f90
user 0m58.168s
gfortran -march=opteron -ffast-math -funroll-loops -ftree-loop-linear -msse3
-O3 -mfpmath=387 -fvect-cost-model induct.f90
user 0m46.415s
All on:
Family: 15 Model: 4 Stepping: 10 Type: 0 Brand: 0
CPU Model: Pentium 4 D (Foster) Original OEM
Processor name string: Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 3.60GHz
(so -march=opteron is a bit misleading)
I'd say that vectorizer cost model is doing its job pretty well.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32086
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/32086] [4.3 Regression] 10% to 20% Performance Regression Between 4.1.3 and 4.3
2007-05-25 17:10 [Bug target/32086] New: 10% to 20% Performance Regression Between 4.1.3 and 4.3 burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2007-11-30 10:27 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
@ 2007-11-30 10:59 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
2007-11-30 13:20 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
` (8 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: bonzini at gnu dot org @ 2007-11-30 10:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2007-11-30 10:59 -------
Looking at
http://physik.fu-berlin.de/~tburnus/gcc-trunk/benchmark/gfortran-run.dat and
http://physik.fu-berlin.de/~tburnus/gcc-trunk/benchmark/gfortranVecCost-run.dat
I think we should turn on cost model by default, at least for i386.
Uros?
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2007-11-30 10:59:33
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32086
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/32086] [4.3 Regression] 10% to 20% Performance Regression Between 4.1.3 and 4.3
2007-05-25 17:10 [Bug target/32086] New: 10% to 20% Performance Regression Between 4.1.3 and 4.3 burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2007-11-30 10:59 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
@ 2007-11-30 13:20 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2007-11-30 13:30 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: ubizjak at gmail dot com @ 2007-11-30 13:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2007-11-30 13:20 -------
This is with latest SVN:
Benchmark
Name 387 387c sse ssec
--------- ------- ------- ------- -------
ac 16.57 16.57 22.66 22.65
aermod 55.85 54.72 50.23 51.08
air 14.95 15.02 15.92 15.94
capacita 78.60 78.55 81.89 81.95
channel 9.90 9.78 9.90 9.65
doduc 59.82 59.65 67.81 68.97
fatigue 20.06 18.27 21.65 21.27
gas_dyn 11.47 11.35 10.62 10.68
induct 60.60 50.92 73.82 58.74
linpk 27.26 27.20 28.24 28.17
mdbx 30.41 30.36 33.33 33.23
nf 33.63 33.69 31.97 32.03
protein 73.16 72.87 72.67 72.76
rnflow 57.18 57.18 42.19 42.46
test_fpu 20.71 20.86 21.61 21.54
tfft 4.86 5.10 4.92 5.11
27.48 27.03 28.26 27.93
gcc version 4.3.0 20071130 (experimental) [trunk revision 130533] (GCC)
Family: 15 Model: 4 Stepping: 10 Type: 0 Brand: 0
CPU Model: Pentium 4 D (Foster) Original OEM
Processor name string: Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 3.60GHz
Compile Command :
-march=opteron -ffast-math -funroll-loops -ftree-loop-linear -msse3 -O3
387 : -mfpmath=387
387c: -mfpmath=387 -fvec-cost-model
sse : -mfpmath=sse
ssec: -mfpmath=sse -fvec-cost-model
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32086
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/32086] [4.3 Regression] 10% to 20% Performance Regression Between 4.1.3 and 4.3
2007-05-25 17:10 [Bug target/32086] New: 10% to 20% Performance Regression Between 4.1.3 and 4.3 burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2007-11-30 13:20 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
@ 2007-11-30 13:30 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
2007-11-30 15:23 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
` (6 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: bonzini at gnu dot org @ 2007-11-30 13:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2007-11-30 13:30 -------
Testing a one-liner.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32086
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/32086] [4.3 Regression] 10% to 20% Performance Regression Between 4.1.3 and 4.3
2007-05-25 17:10 [Bug target/32086] New: 10% to 20% Performance Regression Between 4.1.3 and 4.3 burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2007-11-30 13:30 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
@ 2007-11-30 15:23 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
2007-12-10 8:35 ` bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr @ 2007-11-30 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2007-11-30 15:23 -------
> I think we should turn on cost model by default, at least for i386.
Although the information on cost model are very scarce in the gcc manual, if
its goal is to avoid too costly vectorization, it should certainly turned on by
default. And probably if this increases the execution time, the cost model
would need some tuning. Concerning the induct code it is not a good test case
on PPC since it uses double FP. On a 2.16Ghz Core2Duo I get for induct:
-O3 -ffast-math -funroll-loops induct.f90
93.192u 0.066s 1:33.28 99.9% 0+0k 0+1io 0pf+0w
-O3 -ffast-math -funroll-loops -fvect-cost-model induct.f90
73.453u 0.107s 1:13.57 99.9% 0+0k 0+1io 0pf+0w
-O3 -ffast-math -funroll-loops -mfpmath=387 induct.f90
105.564u 0.128s 1:45.69 99.9% 0+0k 0+1io 0pf+0w
-O3 -ffast-math -funroll-loops -mfpmath=387 -fvect-cost-model induct.f90
79.162u 0.088s 1:19.25 99.9% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
With the patch in comment #5 of PR34265, the timings are:
without -mfpmath=387 and with or without -fvect-cost-model
37.014u 0.065s 0:37.08 99.9% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
with -mfpmath=387 and with or without -fvect-cost-model
39.820u 0.071s 0:39.89 100.0% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32086
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/32086] [4.3 Regression] 10% to 20% Performance Regression Between 4.1.3 and 4.3
2007-05-25 17:10 [Bug target/32086] New: 10% to 20% Performance Regression Between 4.1.3 and 4.3 burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2007-11-30 15:23 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
@ 2007-12-10 8:35 ` bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-12-10 8:37 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-12-10 8:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #10 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2007-12-10 08:34 -------
Subject: Bug 32086
Author: bonzini
Date: Mon Dec 10 08:34:37 2007
New Revision: 130738
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=130738
Log:
2007-12-10 Paolo Bonzini <bonzini@gnu.org>
PR target/32086
* config/i386/i386.c (override_options): Enable -fvect-cost-model.
2007-12-10 Paolo Bonzini <bonzini@gnu.org>
PR target/32086
* gcc.dg/vect/vect.exp (DEFAULT_VECTCFLAGS): Disable cost model.
* g++.dg/vect/vect.exp (DEFAULT_VECTCFLAGS): Disable cost model.
* gfortran.dg/vect/vect.exp (DEFAULT_VECTCFLAGS): Disable cost model.
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/vect/vect.exp
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect.exp
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/vect.exp
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32086
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/32086] [4.3 Regression] 10% to 20% Performance Regression Between 4.1.3 and 4.3
2007-05-25 17:10 [Bug target/32086] New: 10% to 20% Performance Regression Between 4.1.3 and 4.3 burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2007-12-10 8:35 ` bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-12-10 8:37 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
2007-12-10 16:03 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
` (3 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: bonzini at gnu dot org @ 2007-12-10 8:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #11 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2007-12-10 08:36 -------
committed, cost model now enabled for i386.
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32086
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/32086] [4.3 Regression] 10% to 20% Performance Regression Between 4.1.3 and 4.3
2007-05-25 17:10 [Bug target/32086] New: 10% to 20% Performance Regression Between 4.1.3 and 4.3 burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2007-12-10 8:37 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
@ 2007-12-10 16:03 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
2007-12-10 16:38 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr @ 2007-12-10 16:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #12 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2007-12-10 16:03 -------
> committed, cost model now enabled for i386.
Is it working for Intel Core2Duo? At revision 130743 and
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-apple-darwin9
Configured with: ../gcc-4.3-work/configure --prefix=/opt/gcc/gcc4.3w
--mandir=/opt/gcc/gcc4.3w/share/man --infodir=/opt/gcc/gcc4.3w/share/info
--build=i686-apple-darwin9 --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,objc,obj-c++,java
--with-gmp=/sw --with-libiconv-prefix=/sw --with-system-zlib
--x-includes=/usr/X11R6/include --x-libraries=/usr/X11R6/lib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.3.0 20071210 (experimental) (GCC)
for 'gfc -O3 -ffast-math -funroll-loops induct.f90' (with/without
-fvect-cost-model), the execution time is:
93.986u 0.051s 1:34.04 99.9% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
while for 'gfc -O3 -ffast-math -funroll-loops --param min-vect-loop-bound=2
induct.f90', it is:
76.345u 0.048s 1:16.39 99.9% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
If yes, the cost model should be tuned for Core2Duo. If no, did I do something
wrong with the configure?
Should I open a new PR for these questions?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32086
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/32086] [4.3 Regression] 10% to 20% Performance Regression Between 4.1.3 and 4.3
2007-05-25 17:10 [Bug target/32086] New: 10% to 20% Performance Regression Between 4.1.3 and 4.3 burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2007-12-10 16:03 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
@ 2007-12-10 16:38 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
2007-12-10 16:41 ` howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu
2007-12-10 17:07 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: bonzini at gnu dot org @ 2007-12-10 16:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #13 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2007-12-10 16:37 -------
I think so.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32086
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/32086] [4.3 Regression] 10% to 20% Performance Regression Between 4.1.3 and 4.3
2007-05-25 17:10 [Bug target/32086] New: 10% to 20% Performance Regression Between 4.1.3 and 4.3 burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2007-12-10 16:38 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
@ 2007-12-10 16:41 ` howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu
2007-12-10 17:07 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu @ 2007-12-10 16:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #14 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2007-12-10 16:41 -------
Dominique,
What do you get when you use the proposed early-complete-unrolling patch
from PR34265 and is there any movement towards getting some form of that patch
into gcc trunk?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32086
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/32086] [4.3 Regression] 10% to 20% Performance Regression Between 4.1.3 and 4.3
2007-05-25 17:10 [Bug target/32086] New: 10% to 20% Performance Regression Between 4.1.3 and 4.3 burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2007-12-10 16:41 ` howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu
@ 2007-12-10 17:07 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-12-10 17:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #15 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-10 17:07 -------
Early unrolling will be addressed earliest in the next stage1.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32086
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-12-10 17:07 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-05-25 17:10 [Bug target/32086] New: 10% to 20% Performance Regression Between 4.1.3 and 4.3 burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-09-11 11:57 ` [Bug target/32086] [4.3 Regression] " jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-10-10 17:45 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-11-29 8:09 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2007-11-30 5:41 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
2007-11-30 6:42 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2007-11-30 7:17 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
2007-11-30 10:27 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2007-11-30 10:59 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
2007-11-30 13:20 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2007-11-30 13:30 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
2007-11-30 15:23 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
2007-12-10 8:35 ` bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-12-10 8:37 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
2007-12-10 16:03 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
2007-12-10 16:38 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
2007-12-10 16:41 ` howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu
2007-12-10 17:07 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).