From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 6EBDD3858431; Thu, 11 May 2023 15:49:26 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 6EBDD3858431 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1683820166; bh=HToILOmOYReAQl3F5VUHwy9tkEuzzc6/b0Mg9rGp2AU=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=yZFyyo/tHF1KIWSkK4YlrBTrv6ny2vpYTu3SZBGYemS24zDFTlHnkuEvLjO0G7LEg nHVhQk1LcA+UvVnG648lp3hBjgNmUnV5a/MIPvEMgJqgW6Xs00346ebB5ZESt9pCcy fo7r0ZLYguHSB0mu27+bYdL5KQQ2HnDq+ZRYFe68= From: "aros at gmx dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/109811] libxjl 0.7 is a lot slower in GCC 13.1 vs Clang 16 Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 15:49:26 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.1.1 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: aros at gmx dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: INVALID 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: bug_status resolution Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D109811 Artem S. Tashkinov changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |INVALID --- Comment #2 from Artem S. Tashkinov --- According to the latest Phoronix test which can be easily downloaded, run a= nd reproduced, GCC 13.1 loses to Clang by a wide margin, in certain workloads = it's ~30% (!) slower and I just wanted to alert its developers to a widening gap= in performance v Clang. I'm not a developer either, I'm simply no one. My previous bug reports for performance regressions and deficiencies weren't met with such ... words, so, I'm sorry I'm not in a mood of proving anythin= g, so I'll just go ahead and close it as useless, annoying and maybe even outr= ight invalid.=