From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 34FCA3858D20; Tue, 30 May 2023 14:46:41 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 34FCA3858D20 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1685458001; bh=LmTU8GJ6rabLgHjNEl2KTNsp2ensLw3WQODwP4XkhVw=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=pfnmGj3su8c9cgjhAQN4+xgpKXYZHQ4V9HWKbuvCE3Rsoj8/axrQrPc+cFWcZ1t9E 1/vYuCfbxRfad1eXzLVZltq79mf4dSVk21YOUWsXO767yIsyUtZcH8yu4u4NO8VMOd 92lu3C1+xhpH2+lpnflkHzcuvbJzdZxBekFfDy5M= From: "d_vampile at 163 dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/110023] 10% performance drop on important benchmark after r247544. Date: Tue, 30 May 2023 14:46:40 +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: 10.3.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: d_vampile at 163 dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED 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: 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=3D110023 --- Comment #2 from d_vampile --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > This is almost definitely an aarch64 cost model issue ... Do you mean that the vectorized cost_model of the underlying hardware causes the policy of not peeling the loop after r247544 to be chosen? ? So why does loop peeling result in performance improvements? For the following code, I understand that this is a very standard vectorized effective loop. for (j=3D0; j