From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30355 invoked by alias); 22 Mar 2010 10:01:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 27211 invoked by alias); 22 Mar 2010 10:01:32 -0000 Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 10:01:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100322100132.27209.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug target/37367] [4.4/4.5 Regression] gcc-4.4/4.5 speed regression In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "rguenther at suse dot de" 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: 2010-03/txt/msg02142.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de 2010-03-22 10:01 ------- Subject: Re: [4.4/4.5 Regression] gcc-4.4/4.5 speed regression On Sun, 21 Mar 2010, hjl dot tools at gmail dot com wrote: > ------- Comment #7 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-03-21 16:20 ------- > (In reply to comment #6) > > Shouldn't there be a PR about the suboptimal performance from the core2 tuning > > (in hopes that original contributors from Intel will revisit these issues)? > > > > Intel didn't contribute -march=core2. I have been telling > people to use -mtune=generic. So should we make -march=core2 turn on -mtune=generic then? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37367