public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/105216] [12 regression] 8% regression for m-queens compared to gcc11 O2
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 08:38:47 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-105216-4-vRaOJ1I1CO@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-105216-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105216

--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> I suppose it's good again with -fno-tree-vectorize?  With vectorization
> enabled we tame down PRE to avoid creating loop carried dependences the
> vectorizer cannot handle.  For the "important" opportunities we try to
> recover after vectorization with predictive commoning.
> 
> Hmm, confirmed with -fno-tree-vectorize even.
> 
> Possibly caused by r12-7389-ge25dce50133405

Nope, reverting that doesn't fix it.

Note it seems the GCC 11 branch head also regressed compared to
r11-8866-g056e324ce46a79 but not as much as trunk.  Note I can reproduce
~2% regression from that 11 branch rev on the branch and ~4% towards trunk
so it's also a bit noisy.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-04-11  8:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-04-11  7:57 [Bug tree-optimization/105216] New: " crazylht at gmail dot com
2022-04-11  8:12 ` [Bug tree-optimization/105216] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-11  8:18 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-11  8:35 ` crazylht at gmail dot com
2022-04-11  8:38 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2022-04-11 10:08 ` [Bug tree-optimization/105216] [12 regression] 8% regression for m-queens compared to gcc11 O2 on CLX crazylht at gmail dot com
2022-04-11 10:14 ` crazylht at gmail dot com
2022-04-11 10:24 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2022-04-11 12:07 ` crazylht at gmail dot com
2022-04-11 12:13 ` crazylht at gmail dot com
2022-04-12  3:11 ` crazylht at gmail dot com
2022-04-12  6:15 ` crazylht at gmail dot com
2022-04-26 15:08 ` [Bug tree-optimization/105216] [12 regression] 8% regression for m-queens compared to gcc11 O2 on CLX. since r12-3876-g4a960d548b7d7d94 marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-06  8:33 ` [Bug tree-optimization/105216] [12/13 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-07-26 12:34 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-12-31  4:30 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-03  1:01 ` crazylht at gmail dot com
2023-05-08 12:24 ` [Bug tree-optimization/105216] [12/13/14 " rguenth 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-105216-4-vRaOJ1I1CO@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).