From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17811 invoked by alias); 6 Sep 2009 10:17:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 17780 invoked by uid 48); 6 Sep 2009 10:17:23 -0000 Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2009 10:17:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20090906101723.17779.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug target/41279] [4.5 Regression] 252.eon performance regression In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-09/txt/msg00607.txt.bz2 ------- 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