public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/104122] New: On Zen3, 510.parest_r (built with -Ofast) is faster with generic than with native tuning
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2022 17:20:21 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-104122-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104122
Bug ID: 104122
Summary: On Zen3, 510.parest_r (built with -Ofast) is faster
with generic than with native tuning
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
Blocks: 26163
Target Milestone: ---
Host: x86_64-linux
Target: x86_64-linux
On Zen3 based CPUs, benchmark 510.parest_r from the SPEC 2017 FPrate is faster
with -march=generic than with -march=native. LNT reports 11% regression:
https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.0=463.457.0&plot.1=471.457.0&
However, my own measurements on a different but similar EPYC machine suggest it
can be as high as 26%. On a yet another Ryzen machine I can see almost 10%
too. I only have older-than-LNT data from the Ryzen machine and we did not see
the regression when gcc 11 was released. However it seems that the generic
tuning improved while the native one did not.
Referenced Bugs:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
[Bug 26163] [meta-bug] missed optimization in SPEC (2k17, 2k and 2k6 and 95)
next reply other threads:[~2022-01-19 17:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-01-19 17:20 jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2022-01-19 17:54 ` [Bug target/104122] " jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-20 7:54 ` [Bug target/104122] On Zen3, 510.parest_r (built with -Ofast) is faster with generic than with native ISA rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-20 9:40 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-20 10:55 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-18 17:41 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=bug-104122-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
--to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).