From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10174 invoked by alias); 22 Mar 2010 10:47:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 10122 invoked by uid 48); 22 Mar 2010 10:47:31 -0000 Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 10:47:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100322104731.10121.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: "jakub 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: 2010-03/txt/msg02148.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #9 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-22 10:47 ------- >>From the numbers Vladimir posted for SPEC2k, x86_64 -mtune=generic vs. -mtune=core2 has the same rate for SPECint, with core2 slightly smaller code size, for SPECfp -mtune=core2 has 0.4% worse rate due to 10% drop on facerec (otherwise it would be 0.4% win) with slightly smaller code for -mtune=core2. On x86 SPECint is slightly worse with -mtune=core2 and even code size is slightly larger, SPECfp on the other side has both slightly better rate and code size with -mtune=core2. So using generic tuning for core2 is possible. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37367