From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 1E706385E00A; Fri, 15 Mar 2024 09:00:06 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 1E706385E00A
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1710493206;
	bh=Dy+wlVWheyWXRVmB1fps3YxcsM7u1Gd4xQX7MbX0kFg=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=j//LURsHFjUvMdvTDm8+t1cLOsGts1UwPOVsuYLwuatExNgXd80pHMPiFBMQDSD4c
	 c1SbnWjtkxBS5uzp+rMHRxagCN976sXhu8vp99XXoUM7ccNhPz1+nHcuXTolZqPHTp
	 0e2AexHeRM/nOoJTc6kUVOjSR03AA3NylzfsCn3s=
From: "pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/112548] [14 regression] 5% exec time regression in
 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU (since r14-5076-g01c18f58d37865)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 09:00:03 +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: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-112548-4-0LwzcKEbO2@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-112548-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-112548-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D112548

--- Comment #26 from Filip Kastl <pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Yes, the "before" is r14-5075-gc05f748218a0d5.

----

I just tried to take the gcda data and use them to compile mcf on another
machine. I also ran into

output.c:87:1: error: corrupted profile info: number of executions for edge=
 3-4
thought to be 1
output.c:87:1: error: corrupted profile info: number of executions for edge=
 3-5
thought to be -1
output.c:87:1: error: corrupted profile info: number of iterations for basic
block 5 thought to be -1

so the problem probably isn't that our sources or compilation options diffe=
r. I
used the exact same config on both machines.

I'm wondering if I'm generating the gcda files right. I have this in my SPEC
.cfg file

OPTIMIZE     =3D -Ofast -g -march=3Dnative -mtune=3Dnative  -flto=3D32

PASS1_CFLAGS     =3D -fprofile-generate
PASS1_CXXFLAGS   =3D -fprofile-generate
PASS1_FFLAGS     =3D -fprofile-generate
PASS1_LDFLAGS    =3D -fprofile-generate

PASS2_CFLAGS     =3D -fprofile-use
PASS2_CXXFLAGS   =3D -fprofile-use
PASS2_FFLAGS     =3D -fprofile-use
PASS2_LDFLAGS    =3D -fprofile-use

I run the benchmark and afterwards I go to

benchspec/CPU2006/429.mcf/build/build_peak_<name of the cfg>.0000

and copy gcda files from there.=