From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 9DCC13858D28; Tue, 30 May 2023 14:48:16 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 9DCC13858D28 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1685458096; bh=TVKYVJPj4nnElZ+r2Z/OUK0NmP4pUunrJbS/l9Ro4mg=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=BQ/QpYGjU3OLt0SPgpDdaDUbkHbCp8carul93vs4EFj4RIe/T6fIh9nDqlV0S0WuD hOqeB6YuPtNKibX0RnIJEzrC/D7cfAQprgFYC+eouqcY1CxwEsfMq/deqHhHdiHtCC vODq1tZXmhYdafLN9465oGNd8IaOTAlDIJQeMOF8= From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/110026] [Bug] 5% performance drop on important benchmark after r260951. Date: Tue, 30 May 2023 14:48:16 +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, ra X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 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: keywords 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=3D110026 Andrew Pinski changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |ra --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to d_vampile from comment #2) > O0 does miss a lot of optimizations. However, for the problem I mentioned, > the GPRs used before and the FP registers after modification are used. Wh= en > vectorization is not applicable, the X0 register is faster than the D0 > register. Is it appropriate to modify here? Well the generic_tunings has: { 4, /* load_int. */ 4, /* store_int. */ 4, /* load_fp. */ 4, /* store_fp. */ 4, /* load_pred. */ 4 /* store_pred. */ }, /* memmov_cost. */ Which says the load/store of fp has the same cost as ints (gprs) (this is t= he same as a53's tuning). If anything that should be changed .... Of you should use -mcpu=3D* where appliable.=