* [Bug target/41279] [4.5 Regression] 252.eon performance regression
2009-09-05 16:05 [Bug target/41279] New: [4.5 Regression] 252.eon performance regression rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-09-05 16:07 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-09-05 16:13 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-09-05 16:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-05 16:07 -------
Likewise effects in SPEC FP. My guess would be scheduler effects of the VTA
changes there. While compare-debug tests code generation is the same with
-g vs. -g0 nothing checks code generation differences caused by the VTA
"fixes".
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41279
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug target/41279] [4.5 Regression] 252.eon performance regression
2009-09-05 16:05 [Bug target/41279] New: [4.5 Regression] 252.eon performance regression rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-09-05 16:07 ` [Bug target/41279] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-09-05 16:13 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-09-05 16:14 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-09-05 16:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41279
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug target/41279] [4.5 Regression] 252.eon performance regression
2009-09-05 16:05 [Bug target/41279] New: [4.5 Regression] 252.eon performance regression rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-09-05 16:07 ` [Bug target/41279] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-09-05 16:13 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-09-05 16:14 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-09-06 10:17 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-09-05 16:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-05 16:14 -------
I'll revert the SRA fix on the tester to rule out that change for tonight.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41279
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug target/41279] [4.5 Regression] 252.eon performance regression
2009-09-05 16:05 [Bug target/41279] New: [4.5 Regression] 252.eon performance regression rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2009-09-05 16:14 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-09-06 10:17 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-09-07 12:06 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-09-06 10:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-06 10:17 -------
Most of the eon regression was due to the SRA patch. Other changes weren't
affected by the SRA patch and so have to be attributed to VTA.
See http://gcc.opensuse.org/SPEC/CFP/sb-terbium-head-64/recent.html
and http://gcc.opensuse.org/SPEC/CINT/sb-terbium-head-64/recent.html
and the bumps around Sep 3rd. I guess VTA wasn't supposed to change code
generation at all.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41279
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug target/41279] [4.5 Regression] 252.eon performance regression
2009-09-05 16:05 [Bug target/41279] New: [4.5 Regression] 252.eon performance regression rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2009-09-06 10:17 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-09-07 12:06 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-09-08 11:58 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-09-07 12:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-07 12:05 -------
Hm, I wonder how come we did not come across this when testing the
patch for exactly these kinds of problems in July. Anyway, I will
have a look at it.
Nevertheless, I believe we should split this bug in two so that we can
track the SRA and VTA regressions separately. So unless someone
objects or I realize the fix is so trivial it does not really deserve
its own PR, I'll create a new Pr for the SRA issue when I come across
something interesting.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC|mjambor at suse dot cz |jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41279
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug target/41279] [4.5 Regression] 252.eon performance regression
2009-09-05 16:05 [Bug target/41279] New: [4.5 Regression] 252.eon performance regression rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2009-09-07 12:06 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-09-08 11:58 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-09-29 21:42 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-09-08 11:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-08 11:58 -------
I tried to reproduce this manually (on thallium:/abuild/mjambor/) but
couldn't. I just get the same execution times with or without that
patch reverted... I am not sure what this means or how to proceed from
here.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41279
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug target/41279] [4.5 Regression] 252.eon performance regression
2009-09-05 16:05 [Bug target/41279] New: [4.5 Regression] 252.eon performance regression rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2009-09-08 11:58 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-09-29 21:42 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-09-30 9:58 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-09-29 21:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-29 21:42 -------
I've looked at what code generation changes the jump from r151310 to r151312
(aka VTA merge) and on eon.cc at -O3 -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops on ia64-linux
the difference is that r151310 unroll something that r151312 does not.
The change that caused this is in num_loop_insns:
@@ -176,8 +176,8 @@ num_loop_insns (const struct loop *loop)
{
bb = bbs[i];
ninsns++;
- for (insn = BB_HEAD (bb); insn != BB_END (bb); insn = NEXT_INSN (insn))
- if (INSN_P (insn))
+ FOR_BB_INSNS (bb, insn)
+ if (NONDEBUG_INSN_P (insn))
ninsns++;
}
free(bbs);
Note that before we didn't count BB_END (bb) insn (well, it is probably counted
in that ninsns++ before the loop), but now we do. Similar change to
average_num_loop_insns changed binsns = 1; before the loop to binsns = 0;, so I
think that:
--- cfgloopanal.c.xx 2009-09-29 17:19:59.000000000 +0200
+++ cfgloopanal.c 2009-09-29 23:30:26.000000000 +0200
@@ -175,12 +175,11 @@ num_loop_insns (const struct loop *loop)
for (i = 0; i < loop->num_nodes; i++)
{
bb = bbs[i];
- ninsns++;
FOR_BB_INSNS (bb, insn)
if (NONDEBUG_INSN_P (insn))
ninsns++;
}
- free(bbs);
+ free (bbs);
return ninsns;
}
is a correct change. No idea whether 252.eon's hot loop is in eon.cc or
elsewhere though.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41279
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug target/41279] [4.5 Regression] 252.eon performance regression
2009-09-05 16:05 [Bug target/41279] New: [4.5 Regression] 252.eon performance regression rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2009-09-29 21:42 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-09-30 9:58 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-09-30 20:09 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-09-30 9:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-30 09:58 -------
Subject: Bug 41279
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Sep 30 09:57:56 2009
New Revision: 152324
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=152324
Log:
PR target/41279
* cfgloopanal.c (num_loop_insns): Don't increment ninsns for each bb
before insn counting loop now that BB_END (bb) is counted. Ensure
the return value isn't zero.
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/cfgloopanal.c
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41279
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug target/41279] [4.5 Regression] 252.eon performance regression
2009-09-05 16:05 [Bug target/41279] New: [4.5 Regression] 252.eon performance regression rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2009-09-30 9:58 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-09-30 20:09 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-10-30 20:42 ` sje at cup dot hp dot com
` (2 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-09-30 20:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41279
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug target/41279] [4.5 Regression] 252.eon performance regression
2009-09-05 16:05 [Bug target/41279] New: [4.5 Regression] 252.eon performance regression rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2009-09-30 20:09 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-10-30 20:42 ` sje at cup dot hp dot com
2009-10-30 22:11 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-12-16 22:49 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: sje at cup dot hp dot com @ 2009-10-30 20:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2009-10-30 20:42 -------
It looks like a patch has been checked in to fix this bug, is there any reason
we can't close this defect?
--
sje at cup dot hp dot com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |sje at cup dot hp dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41279
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug target/41279] [4.5 Regression] 252.eon performance regression
2009-09-05 16:05 [Bug target/41279] New: [4.5 Regression] 252.eon performance regression rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2009-10-30 20:42 ` sje at cup dot hp dot com
@ 2009-10-30 22:11 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-12-16 22:49 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-10-30 22:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-30 22:10 -------
It didn't have any effect on the regression.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41279
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug target/41279] [4.5 Regression] 252.eon performance regression
2009-09-05 16:05 [Bug target/41279] New: [4.5 Regression] 252.eon performance regression rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2009-10-30 22:11 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-12-16 22:49 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-12-16 22:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-16 22:48 -------
Seems to be fixed now.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41279
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread