public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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: Mon, 12 Dec 2022 09:48:59 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-107409-4-jVQ0Ic7JpF@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-107409-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107409
--- Comment #14 from Rama Malladi <rvmallad at amazon dot com> ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #13)
> Note the mentioned revision is a fix and yes, sometimes these revisions can
> end up with a regression as profile estimation is a complex guess.
Yes, possibly. So, from my understanding, the update_max_bb_count() tracks the
max basic block count and takes a decision to inline or not in this case/ run.
That is likely why we see a larger instruction count w this function executed/
enabled.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-12-12 9:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-10-26 9:05 [Bug tree-optimization/107409] New: Perf loss ~5% on 519.lbm_r SPEC cpu2017 benchmark rvmallad at amazon dot com
2022-10-26 9:20 ` [Bug tree-optimization/107409] " rvmallad at amazon dot com
2022-10-27 8:08 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-27 8:13 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-27 8:15 ` rvmallad at amazon dot com
2022-10-27 8:28 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-27 12:08 ` rvmallad at amazon dot com
2022-10-27 12:18 ` mark at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-27 12:21 ` rvmallad at amazon dot com
2022-12-01 6:54 ` [Bug tree-optimization/107409] Perf loss ~5% on 519.lbm_r SPEC cpu2017 benchmark with r10-5090-ga9a4edf0e71bba rvmallad at amazon dot com
2022-12-01 10:09 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-12-08 10:32 ` rvmallad at amazon dot com
2022-12-09 9:48 ` rvmallad at amazon dot com
2022-12-09 10:05 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-12-12 9:48 ` rvmallad at amazon dot com [this message]
2023-01-09 4:38 ` rvmallad at amazon dot com
2023-01-09 8:41 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-30 18:15 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-02-02 21:35 ` spop at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-02-03 2:00 ` rvmallad at amazon dot com
2023-02-20 3:57 ` rvmallad at amazon dot com
2023-02-24 10:26 ` rvmallad at amazon dot com
2023-03-30 4:56 ` rvmallad at amazon dot com
2023-03-30 4:58 ` rvmallad at amazon dot com
2023-03-30 7:52 ` marxin 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-107409-4-jVQ0Ic7JpF@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).