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 EF2AE3858CDA; Thu, 30 Mar 2023 04:58:40 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org EF2AE3858CDA
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1680152320;
	bh=z5rVw+aI5BfGHSZey1DpuiMBLfVqReRr+MrA072i3Yg=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=xapxcxJ7jnIbeqQl+RxHbedUor4I/7NqciO+d+aZ2yrpTclHHwJ3V5aRJWJU8DD4F
	 LWFLGQykUUku93Xt0yVufdrDTbZx4fn9uziOZk2J/dHYB8FDBUmkzuzB5bi/o2/p3+
	 fTgBGKOPge0xU7RQcfYYdr636oidpJ7vQytv+osA=
From: "rvmallad at amazon dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/107409] Perf loss ~5% on 519.lbm_r SPEC
 cpu2017 benchmark with r10-5090-ga9a4edf0e71bba
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2023 04:58:40 +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: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rvmallad at amazon dot com
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: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-107409-4-6UXiLHjOvd@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-107409-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-107409-4@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
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D107409

--- Comment #23 from Rama Malladi <rvmallad at amazon dot com> ---
(In reply to Rama Malladi from comment #22)
> I will close this issue as we were unable to reproduce the perf drop going
> from gcc-7 to gcc-8 on a Graviton2 based instance. The performance of
> 519.lbm_r built with gcc-7.4 was same as that with gcc-8.5.

Can someone from the GCC dev/ regression team close this issue as I am unab=
le
to find an option for the same? Thanks=