public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/109811] libjxl 0.7 is a lot slower in GCC 13.1 vs Clang 16
Date: Wed, 17 May 2023 14:10:08 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-109811-4-oLG53wVXuY@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-109811-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109811

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

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

--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to JuzheZhong from comment #7)
> It seems that Clang has better performance than GCC in case of no vectorizer?

That is very general statement.  On some particular code, some particular arch,
with some particular flags Clang performs better than GCC, on other it is the
other way around, on some it is wash.  How it performs on larger amounts of
code can be seen from standard benchmarks like SPEC, the Phoronix benchmark
suite is known not to be a very good benchmark for various reasons, but that
doesn't mean it isn't worth looking at it.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2023-05-17 14:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-05-11 14:24 [Bug tree-optimization/109811] New: libxjl " aros at gmx dot com
2023-05-11 15:30 ` [Bug target/109811] " xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-11 15:49 ` aros at gmx dot com
2023-05-12  6:59 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-17  8:42 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-17  9:08 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-17 12:35 ` [Bug target/109811] libjxl " hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-17 13:59 ` juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai
2023-05-17 14:04 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-17 14:10 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2023-05-17 14:58 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-18 13:40 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-06-19 16:28 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-11-02 14:12 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-11-21 14:17 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-11-24 23:13 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-11-24 23:23 ` sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-11-25  6:22 ` aros at gmx dot com
2023-11-25 13:31 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-05 21:31 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-20 17:23 ` pinskia 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-109811-4-oLG53wVXuY@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).