* [Bug target/112548] 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU
2023-11-15 15:07 [Bug target/112548] New: 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU fkastl at suse dot cz
@ 2023-11-16 7:27 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-13 13:38 ` [Bug target/112548] [14 regression] 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU (since r14-5076-g01c18f58d37865) pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
` (31 subsequent siblings)
32 siblings, 0 replies; 34+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-11-16 7:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112548
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |missed-optimization,
| |needs-bisection
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Possibly r14-5076-g01c18f58d37865
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/112548] [14 regression] 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU (since r14-5076-g01c18f58d37865)
2023-11-15 15:07 [Bug target/112548] New: 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU fkastl at suse dot cz
2023-11-16 7:27 ` [Bug target/112548] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-02-13 13:38 ` pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-13 13:44 ` pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
` (30 subsequent siblings)
32 siblings, 0 replies; 34+ messages in thread
From: pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-02-13 13:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112548
Filip Kastl <pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC| |rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org
Summary|[14 regression] 5% exec |[14 regression] 5% exec
|time regression in 429.mcf |time regression in 429.mcf
|on AMD zen4 CPU |on AMD zen4 CPU (since
| |r14-5076-g01c18f58d37865)
--- Comment #2 from Filip Kastl <pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Indeed, I bisected the slowdown to r14-5076-g01c18f58d37865
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/112548] [14 regression] 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU (since r14-5076-g01c18f58d37865)
2023-11-15 15:07 [Bug target/112548] New: 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU fkastl at suse dot cz
2023-11-16 7:27 ` [Bug target/112548] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-13 13:38 ` [Bug target/112548] [14 regression] 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU (since r14-5076-g01c18f58d37865) pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-02-13 13:44 ` pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-13 13:48 ` rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org
` (29 subsequent siblings)
32 siblings, 0 replies; 34+ messages in thread
From: pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-02-13 13:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112548
--- Comment #3 from Filip Kastl <pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Btw, the slowdown seems specific to PGO+LTO, with PGO or LTO by itself the
benchmarks execution times are relatively stable:
https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.0=991.60.0&plot.1=992.60.0&plot.2=962.60.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/112548] [14 regression] 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU (since r14-5076-g01c18f58d37865)
2023-11-15 15:07 [Bug target/112548] New: 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU fkastl at suse dot cz
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2024-02-13 13:44 ` pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-02-13 13:48 ` rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-13 14:48 ` pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
` (28 subsequent siblings)
32 siblings, 0 replies; 34+ messages in thread
From: rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-02-13 13:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112548
--- Comment #4 from Robin Dapp <rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Judging by the graph it looks like it was slow before, then got faster and now
slower again. Is there some more info on why it got faster in the first place?
Did the patch reverse something or is it rather a secondary effect? I don't
have a zen4 handy to check.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/112548] [14 regression] 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU (since r14-5076-g01c18f58d37865)
2023-11-15 15:07 [Bug target/112548] New: 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU fkastl at suse dot cz
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2024-02-13 13:48 ` rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-02-13 14:48 ` pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-04 13:02 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (27 subsequent siblings)
32 siblings, 0 replies; 34+ messages in thread
From: pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-02-13 14:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112548
--- Comment #5 from Filip Kastl <pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Robin Dapp from comment #4)
> Judging by the graph it looks like it was slow before, then got faster and
> now slower again. Is there some more info on why it got faster in the first
> place? Did the patch reverse something or is it rather a secondary effect?
> I don't have a zen4 handy to check.
Don't know if this helps but I bisected the speedup to
g:b583a2940af90d03f535648fef111cb158933f7d.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/112548] [14 regression] 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU (since r14-5076-g01c18f58d37865)
2023-11-15 15:07 [Bug target/112548] New: 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU fkastl at suse dot cz
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2024-02-13 14:48 ` pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-03-04 13:02 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-04 13:35 ` rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org
` (26 subsequent siblings)
32 siblings, 0 replies; 34+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-03-04 13:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112548
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/112548] [14 regression] 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU (since r14-5076-g01c18f58d37865)
2023-11-15 15:07 [Bug target/112548] New: 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU fkastl at suse dot cz
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2024-03-04 13:02 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-03-04 13:35 ` rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-07 21:01 ` law at gcc dot gnu.org
` (25 subsequent siblings)
32 siblings, 0 replies; 34+ messages in thread
From: rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-03-04 13:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112548
--- Comment #6 from Robin Dapp <rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Honestly, I don't know how to analyze/debug this without a zen4, in particular
as it only seems to happen with PGO. I tried locally but of course the
execution time doesn't change (same as with zen3 according to the database).
Is there a way to obtain the binaries in order to tell a difference?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/112548] [14 regression] 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU (since r14-5076-g01c18f58d37865)
2023-11-15 15:07 [Bug target/112548] New: 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU fkastl at suse dot cz
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2024-03-04 13:35 ` rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-03-07 21:01 ` law at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-08 14:42 ` rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org
` (24 subsequent siblings)
32 siblings, 0 replies; 34+ messages in thread
From: law at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-03-07 21:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112548
Jeffrey A. Law <law at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |law at gcc dot gnu.org
Priority|P3 |P2
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/112548] [14 regression] 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU (since r14-5076-g01c18f58d37865)
2023-11-15 15:07 [Bug target/112548] New: 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU fkastl at suse dot cz
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2024-03-07 21:01 ` law at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-03-08 14:42 ` rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-12 13:03 ` pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
` (23 subsequent siblings)
32 siblings, 0 replies; 34+ messages in thread
From: rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-03-08 14:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112548
--- Comment #7 from Robin Dapp <rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I built executables with and without the commit (-Ofast -march=znver4 -flto).
There is no difference so it must really be something that happens with PGO.
I'd really need access to a zen4 box or the pgo executables at least.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/112548] [14 regression] 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU (since r14-5076-g01c18f58d37865)
2023-11-15 15:07 [Bug target/112548] New: 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU fkastl at suse dot cz
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2024-03-08 14:42 ` rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-03-12 13:03 ` pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-12 15:05 ` sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
` (22 subsequent siblings)
32 siblings, 0 replies; 34+ messages in thread
From: pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-03-12 13:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112548
--- Comment #8 from Filip Kastl <pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Robin Dapp from comment #7)
> I built executables with and without the commit (-Ofast -march=znver4
> -flto). There is no difference so it must really be something that happens
> with PGO.
> I'd really need access to a zen4 box or the pgo executables at least.
I'd like to help but I'm afraid I cannot send you the SPEC binaries with PGO
applied since SPEC is licensed nor can I give you access to a Zen4 computer. I
suppose someone else will have to analyze this bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/112548] [14 regression] 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU (since r14-5076-g01c18f58d37865)
2023-11-15 15:07 [Bug target/112548] New: 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU fkastl at suse dot cz
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2024-03-12 13:03 ` pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-03-12 15:05 ` sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-13 9:55 ` rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org
` (21 subsequent siblings)
32 siblings, 0 replies; 34+ messages in thread
From: sjames at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-03-12 15:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112548
--- Comment #9 from Sam James <sjames at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Filip Kastl from comment #8)
> I'd like to help but I'm afraid I cannot send you the SPEC binaries with PGO
> applied since SPEC is licensed nor can I give you access to a Zen4 computer.
> I suppose someone else will have to analyze this bug.
Could you perhaps send only the gcda files so Robin can build again with
-fprofile-use?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/112548] [14 regression] 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU (since r14-5076-g01c18f58d37865)
2023-11-15 15:07 [Bug target/112548] New: 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU fkastl at suse dot cz
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2024-03-12 15:05 ` sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-03-13 9:55 ` rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-14 15:24 ` pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
` (20 subsequent siblings)
32 siblings, 0 replies; 34+ messages in thread
From: rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-03-13 9:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112548
--- Comment #10 from Robin Dapp <rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #9)
> (In reply to Filip Kastl from comment #8)
> > I'd like to help but I'm afraid I cannot send you the SPEC binaries with PGO
> > applied since SPEC is licensed nor can I give you access to a Zen4 computer.
> > I suppose someone else will have to analyze this bug.
>
> Could you perhaps send only the gcda files so Robin can build again with
> -fprofile-use?
Yes, that would be helpful.
Or Filip builds the executables himself and posts (some of) the difference
here. Maybe that also gets us a bit closer to the problem.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/112548] [14 regression] 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU (since r14-5076-g01c18f58d37865)
2023-11-15 15:07 [Bug target/112548] New: 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU fkastl at suse dot cz
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2024-03-13 9:55 ` rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-03-14 15:24 ` pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-14 15:25 ` pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
` (19 subsequent siblings)
32 siblings, 0 replies; 34+ messages in thread
From: pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-03-14 15:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112548
--- Comment #11 from Filip Kastl <pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 57698
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57698&action=edit
gcda data for the commit g:c3847ca0571e5ace - after the change
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/112548] [14 regression] 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU (since r14-5076-g01c18f58d37865)
2023-11-15 15:07 [Bug target/112548] New: 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU fkastl at suse dot cz
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2024-03-14 15:24 ` pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-03-14 15:25 ` pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-14 15:31 ` pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
` (18 subsequent siblings)
32 siblings, 0 replies; 34+ messages in thread
From: pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-03-14 15:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112548
--- Comment #12 from Filip Kastl <pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 57699
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57699&action=edit
gcda data for the commit g:4ea36076d66eea0f - before the change
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/112548] [14 regression] 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU (since r14-5076-g01c18f58d37865)
2023-11-15 15:07 [Bug target/112548] New: 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU fkastl at suse dot cz
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2024-03-14 15:25 ` pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-03-14 15:31 ` pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-14 15:57 ` pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
` (17 subsequent siblings)
32 siblings, 0 replies; 34+ messages in thread
From: pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-03-14 15:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112548
--- Comment #13 from Filip Kastl <pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Hmm. It will be better to have the gcda data for the Robin's commit and the
commit before it. I'll go generate those.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/112548] [14 regression] 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU (since r14-5076-g01c18f58d37865)
2023-11-15 15:07 [Bug target/112548] New: 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU fkastl at suse dot cz
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2024-03-14 15:31 ` pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-03-14 15:57 ` pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-14 15:58 ` pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
` (16 subsequent siblings)
32 siblings, 0 replies; 34+ messages in thread
From: pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-03-14 15:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112548
Filip Kastl <pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment #57698|0 |1
is obsolete| |
--- Comment #14 from Filip Kastl <pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 57700
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57700&action=edit
gcda data for robin's commit
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/112548] [14 regression] 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU (since r14-5076-g01c18f58d37865)
2023-11-15 15:07 [Bug target/112548] New: 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU fkastl at suse dot cz
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2024-03-14 15:57 ` pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-03-14 15:58 ` pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-14 16:16 ` rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
32 siblings, 0 replies; 34+ messages in thread
From: pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-03-14 15:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112548
Filip Kastl <pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment #57699|0 |1
is obsolete| |
--- Comment #15 from Filip Kastl <pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 57701
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57701&action=edit
gcda data for the commit before robin's commit
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/112548] [14 regression] 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU (since r14-5076-g01c18f58d37865)
2023-11-15 15:07 [Bug target/112548] New: 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU fkastl at suse dot cz
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2024-03-14 15:58 ` pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-03-14 16:16 ` rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-14 16:28 ` pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
` (14 subsequent siblings)
32 siblings, 0 replies; 34+ messages in thread
From: rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-03-14 16:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112548
--- Comment #16 from Robin Dapp <rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Thank you!
I'm having a problem with the data, though.
Compiling with -Ofast -march=znver4 -mtune=znver4 -flto -fprofile-use=/tmp.
Would you mind showing your exact final options for compilation of e.g.
pbeampp.cc?
I see, similar-ish for both commits:
pbeampp.c:119:8: error: number of counters in profile data for function
'primal_bea_mpp' does not match its profile data (counter 'arcs', expected 20
and have 22) [-Werror=coverage-mismatch]
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/112548] [14 regression] 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU (since r14-5076-g01c18f58d37865)
2023-11-15 15:07 [Bug target/112548] New: 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU fkastl at suse dot cz
` (17 preceding siblings ...)
2024-03-14 16:16 ` rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-03-14 16:28 ` pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-14 16:32 ` rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
32 siblings, 0 replies; 34+ messages in thread
From: pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-03-14 16:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112548
--- Comment #17 from Filip Kastl <pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I have this in the SPEC .cfg file:
OPTIMIZE = -Ofast -g -march=native -mtune=native -flto=32
So the only difference I see is the inclusion of -g.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/112548] [14 regression] 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU (since r14-5076-g01c18f58d37865)
2023-11-15 15:07 [Bug target/112548] New: 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU fkastl at suse dot cz
` (18 preceding siblings ...)
2024-03-14 16:28 ` pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-03-14 16:32 ` rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-14 16:41 ` pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
32 siblings, 0 replies; 34+ messages in thread
From: rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-03-14 16:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112548
--- Comment #18 from Robin Dapp <rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Hmm, doesn't help unfortunately. A full command line for me looks like:
x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -c -o pbeampp.o -DSPEC_CPU -DNDEBUG -DWANT_STDC_PROTO
-Ofast -march=znver4 -mtune=znver4 -flto=32 -g -fprofile-use=/tmp
-SPEC_CPU_LP64 pbeampp.c.
Could you verify if it's exactly the same for you? Maybe it would also help if
you explicitly specified znver4?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/112548] [14 regression] 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU (since r14-5076-g01c18f58d37865)
2023-11-15 15:07 [Bug target/112548] New: 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU fkastl at suse dot cz
` (19 preceding siblings ...)
2024-03-14 16:32 ` rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-03-14 16:41 ` pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-14 16:43 ` rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
32 siblings, 0 replies; 34+ messages in thread
From: pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-03-14 16:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112548
--- Comment #19 from Filip Kastl <pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
There's indeed another difference. In my case, gcc gets called with -std=gnu99.
Otherwise, I think the options are the same.
gcc -std=gnu99 -c -o pbeampp.o -DSPEC_CPU -DNDEBUG -DWANT_STDC_PROTO
-fprofile-use -Ofast -g -march=native -mtune=native -flto=32
-DSPEC_CPU_LP64 pbeampp.c
If adding -std=gnu99 doesn't help, I can try to generate the gcda with znver4
instead of native as you suggested.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/112548] [14 regression] 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU (since r14-5076-g01c18f58d37865)
2023-11-15 15:07 [Bug target/112548] New: 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU fkastl at suse dot cz
` (20 preceding siblings ...)
2024-03-14 16:41 ` pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-03-14 16:43 ` rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-14 17:01 ` pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
32 siblings, 0 replies; 34+ messages in thread
From: rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-03-14 16:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112548
--- Comment #20 from Robin Dapp <rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
No change with -std=gnu99 unfortunately.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/112548] [14 regression] 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU (since r14-5076-g01c18f58d37865)
2023-11-15 15:07 [Bug target/112548] New: 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU fkastl at suse dot cz
` (21 preceding siblings ...)
2024-03-14 16:43 ` rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-03-14 17:01 ` pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-14 17:17 ` rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
32 siblings, 0 replies; 34+ messages in thread
From: pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-03-14 17:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112548
--- Comment #21 from Filip Kastl <pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 57703
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57703&action=edit
gcda data for the commit before robin's commit (v2)
Here are the gcda files generated with -march=znver4 -mtune=znver4 instead of
native. Only for the earlier commit. Will send data for the Robin's commit if
this works.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/112548] [14 regression] 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU (since r14-5076-g01c18f58d37865)
2023-11-15 15:07 [Bug target/112548] New: 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU fkastl at suse dot cz
` (22 preceding siblings ...)
2024-03-14 17:01 ` pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-03-14 17:17 ` rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-14 17:32 ` pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
32 siblings, 0 replies; 34+ messages in thread
From: rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-03-14 17:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112548
--- Comment #22 from Robin Dapp <rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Still the same problem unfortunately.
I'm a bit out of ideas - maybe your compiler executables could help?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/112548] [14 regression] 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU (since r14-5076-g01c18f58d37865)
2023-11-15 15:07 [Bug target/112548] New: 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU fkastl at suse dot cz
` (23 preceding siblings ...)
2024-03-14 17:17 ` rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-03-14 17:32 ` pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-14 21:08 ` rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
32 siblings, 0 replies; 34+ messages in thread
From: pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-03-14 17:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112548
--- Comment #23 from Filip Kastl <pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Yeah I also don't know what else to do to make the gcda files work for you :-/
I can send you my compiler binaries but you should have exactly the same if you
compile from the same commit (if I'm not mistaken). I checked that I don't
compile with any special ./configure options:
../src/configure --disable-bootstrap --enable-checking --disable-libsanitizer
--prefix=/home/fkastl/gcc/inst --enable-languages=c,lto
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/112548] [14 regression] 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU (since r14-5076-g01c18f58d37865)
2023-11-15 15:07 [Bug target/112548] New: 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU fkastl at suse dot cz
` (24 preceding siblings ...)
2024-03-14 17:32 ` pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-03-14 21:08 ` rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-14 23:02 ` law at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
32 siblings, 0 replies; 34+ messages in thread
From: rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-03-14 21:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112548
--- Comment #24 from Robin Dapp <rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I rebuilt GCC from scratch with your options but still have the same problem.
Could our sources differ? My SPEC version might not be the most recent but I'm
not aware that mcf changed at some point.
Just to be sure: I'm using r14-5075-gc05f748218a0d5 as the "before" commit.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/112548] [14 regression] 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU (since r14-5076-g01c18f58d37865)
2023-11-15 15:07 [Bug target/112548] New: 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU fkastl at suse dot cz
` (25 preceding siblings ...)
2024-03-14 21:08 ` rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-03-14 23:02 ` law at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-15 9:00 ` pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
32 siblings, 0 replies; 34+ messages in thread
From: law at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-03-14 23:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112548
--- Comment #25 from Jeffrey A. Law <law at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Well, at least in theory SPEC isn't supposed to be changing the sources or
validation criteria on us. So while our copy may be old, I would expect it's
still the same as Filip's.
That doesn't resolve any issues here though. It's not clear how best to
proceed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/112548] [14 regression] 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU (since r14-5076-g01c18f58d37865)
2023-11-15 15:07 [Bug target/112548] New: 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU fkastl at suse dot cz
` (26 preceding siblings ...)
2024-03-14 23:02 ` law at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-03-15 9:00 ` pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-15 9:49 ` rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
32 siblings, 0 replies; 34+ messages in thread
From: pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-03-15 9:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112548
--- 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 differ. 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 = -Ofast -g -march=native -mtune=native -flto=32
PASS1_CFLAGS = -fprofile-generate
PASS1_CXXFLAGS = -fprofile-generate
PASS1_FFLAGS = -fprofile-generate
PASS1_LDFLAGS = -fprofile-generate
PASS2_CFLAGS = -fprofile-use
PASS2_CXXFLAGS = -fprofile-use
PASS2_FFLAGS = -fprofile-use
PASS2_LDFLAGS = -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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/112548] [14 regression] 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU (since r14-5076-g01c18f58d37865)
2023-11-15 15:07 [Bug target/112548] New: 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU fkastl at suse dot cz
` (27 preceding siblings ...)
2024-03-15 9:00 ` pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-03-15 9:49 ` rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-15 10:34 ` pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
32 siblings, 0 replies; 34+ messages in thread
From: rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-03-15 9:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112548
--- Comment #27 from Robin Dapp <rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Can you try it with a simpler (non SPEC) test? Maybe there is still something
weird happening with SPEC's scripting.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/112548] [14 regression] 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU (since r14-5076-g01c18f58d37865)
2023-11-15 15:07 [Bug target/112548] New: 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU fkastl at suse dot cz
` (28 preceding siblings ...)
2024-03-15 9:49 ` rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-03-15 10:34 ` pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-15 11:02 ` rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
32 siblings, 0 replies; 34+ messages in thread
From: pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-03-15 10:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112548
--- Comment #28 from Filip Kastl <pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 57710
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57710&action=edit
gcda data for himeno
I've tried sharing non-SPEC gcda data between machines. I used this benchmark
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/kowsalyaChidambaram/Himeno-Benchmark/master/himenobmtxpa.c
I generated the gcda data on a zen4 machine
gcc.sh himenobmtxpa.c -std=c99 -Ofast -march=znver4 -mtune=znver4 -g
-fprofile-generate
and used them on another machine
gcc.sh himenobmtxpa.c -std=c99 -Ofast -march=znver4 -mtune=znver4 -g
-fprofile-use
and everything went fine.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/112548] [14 regression] 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU (since r14-5076-g01c18f58d37865)
2023-11-15 15:07 [Bug target/112548] New: 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU fkastl at suse dot cz
` (29 preceding siblings ...)
2024-03-15 10:34 ` pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-03-15 11:02 ` rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-05-07 7:42 ` [Bug target/112548] [14/15 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-08-01 9:36 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
32 siblings, 0 replies; 34+ messages in thread
From: rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-03-15 11:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112548
--- Comment #29 from Robin Dapp <rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Yes, that also appears to work here. There was no lto involved this time?
Now we need to figure out what's different with SPEC.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/112548] [14/15 regression] 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU (since r14-5076-g01c18f58d37865)
2023-11-15 15:07 [Bug target/112548] New: 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU fkastl at suse dot cz
` (30 preceding siblings ...)
2024-03-15 11:02 ` rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-05-07 7:42 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-08-01 9:36 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
32 siblings, 0 replies; 34+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-05-07 7:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112548
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|14.0 |14.2
--- Comment #30 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 14.1 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 14.2.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/112548] [14/15 regression] 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU (since r14-5076-g01c18f58d37865)
2023-11-15 15:07 [Bug target/112548] New: 5% exec time regression in 429.mcf on AMD zen4 CPU fkastl at suse dot cz
` (31 preceding siblings ...)
2024-05-07 7:42 ` [Bug target/112548] [14/15 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-08-01 9:36 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
32 siblings, 0 replies; 34+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-08-01 9:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112548
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|14.2 |14.3
--- Comment #31 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 14.2 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 14.3.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread