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 9E5923858D1E; Mon, 30 Jan 2023 18:15:34 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 9E5923858D1E
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1675102534;
	bh=D8KV6dArZus9ya1r7HHkSO2N9WfWGSIs6apMX+b/Oqw=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=lBZJOuYBus271khvjoEvLVooQAYb0PCx00YdDhgTvjTAn57l46MD/2PhfVDjUQLtr
	 +Lu8Z1C7lxR1+CO1QM5QlyX2mJtCzbH8F3keF7So0NCJ81VV4P101NvD3wCis/wozQ
	 cp1dRDDL/mS1uFmDQqiN8Saov8Q3+g/gvqurPNkA=
From: "jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org" <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: Mon, 30 Jan 2023 18:15:34 +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: 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: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc
Message-ID: <bug-107409-4-NF6ZA2xnjD@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

Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #17 from Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Martin Li=C5=A1ka from comment #3)
> Note I can't see it for Altra aarch64 CPU:

I think LNT can see it very well and it has appeared around the reported ti=
me:

https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.0=3D759.477.0&plot.1=
=3D584.477.0&

But I don't think the commit given in the bug summary is the culprit, this
clearly happened in GCC 13 development cycle.  Rama, what is your reasoning=
 to
suggest  reverting this particular commit?  If you bisected the issue, can =
you
double check you arrived at the correct one?=