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 0FAA53858418; Fri,  1 Mar 2024 07:52:00 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 0FAA53858418
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1709279520;
	bh=TqVd6pdvcqsiTqM2egUjOKtLkB1KkjYZ94tHYDKv684=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=JkLyD8SQ+B1lbCjKvTMPqq5y1W8YjAW9ikoQ63TNWxa4bnJW8hvG00uvcnktqeAGt
	 PnTERpqcS3/8m4h/ONgjqdhnVjh6bUBMWUje+JHe/ktzioOKwG6uyR7TSoPWP5hK8I
	 Gn5XEnvc1w+/msU+L/CJtf4PwW+rJNMVBKVJUf7g=
From: "xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/112919] LoongArch: Alignments in tune parameters are not
 precise and they regress performance
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2024 07:51:59 +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: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: xry111 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: 
Message-ID: <bug-112919-4-wJ4xYIi54I@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-112919-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-112919-4@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=3D112919

--- Comment #9 from Xi Ruoyao <xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to chenglulu from comment #8)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #7)
> > Any update? :)
>=20
> Well, I haven't run it yet. Since this does not have a big impact on the
> spec score, I am currently testing it on a single-channel machine, so the
> test time will be longer.
> I will reply here as soon as the results are available.

Can we determine on LA664 if the current default alignment is better than n=
ot
aligning at all?  Coremarks results suggest the current default is even wor=
se
than not aligning, but arguably Coremarks is far different from real worklo=
ads.
However if the current default is not better than not aligning (or the
difference is only marginal and is likely covered up by some random
fluctuation) we can disable the aligning for LA664.

(Maybe we and the HW engineers have done some repetitive work or even some =
work
cancelling each other out :(. )=