From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id D89833858D32; Mon, 29 May 2023 14:48:12 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org D89833858D32 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1685371692; bh=qp18vatu4XNkjqC/3BQezlIRR12DLWrlfD2jBHblac4=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=LQ5lpuaPGzk1M3ugV45KC0Zv6Dn5VfoSYKi6bCv0Bt+6VOZLljI1KQBtVyvCSpVvg zmx50j+01Tf0NCYtMW/yMr1qWsXsIUYuzZOBeOPFRMVFwJI2ncrHVK/nDQmmCDl1nk c1gPSUDwhqsyPGmkzc1NCVLdfnf1ixFLS9xIsdtw= From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/110024] [Bug] 5% performance drop on important benchmark after r260951. Date: Mon, 29 May 2023 14:48:12 +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: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: WAITING 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: bug_status cf_reconfirmed_on everconfirmed 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=3D110024 Andrew Pinski changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed| |2023-05-29 Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Which core is showing the difference here? Because some cores I know of, loading/storing using the FP registers is actually one cycle slower than using GPRs.=