From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 81FFF385843C; Thu, 16 Sep 2021 16:17:26 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 81FFF385843C
From: "jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/102178] [12 Regression] SPECFP 2006 470.lbm
 regressions on AMD Zen CPUs after r12-897-gde56f95afaaa22
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 16:17:26 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-102178-4-zOsWfdyahg@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-102178-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-102178-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 16:17:26 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D102178

--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #3)
> ...I'll have a very brief look at what is actually happening just so that=
 I
> have more reasons to believe this is not a code placement issue again.

The hot function is at the same address when compiled by both
revisions and the newer version looks sufficiently different.  I even
tried sprinkling it with nops and it did not help.  I am no saying we
are not bumping against some michro-architectural peculiarity but it
does not seem to be a code placement issue.=