public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/113235] SMHasher SHA3-256 benchmark is almost 40% slower vs. Clang (not enough complete loop peeling)
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2024 14:54:47 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-113235-4-GqKdviqU6D@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-113235-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113235

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
IMO it should be purely growth/unrolled-insns bound, the bound on the actual
unrolled iterations is somewhat artificial (to avoid really large unrolls
when we estimate the unrolled body to be zero, thus never hit any of the other
limits).  That said, I think we should get better at estimating growth - I
don't
think we get that the reads from the constant arrays get elided?  (though
that's
not always an optimal thing)

See the proposal on better estimation I had last year.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2024-01-08 14:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-01-04 16:53 [Bug rtl-optimization/113235] New: SMHasher SHA3-256 benchmark is almost 40% slower vs. Clang on AMD Zen 4 aros at gmx dot com
2024-01-04 17:05 ` [Bug target/113235] " aros at gmx dot com
2024-01-04 17:09 ` xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-04 17:27 ` [Bug target/113235] SMHasher SHA3-256 benchmark is almost 40% slower vs. Clang xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-05 19:54 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-05 20:26 ` [Bug target/113235] SMHasher SHA3-256 benchmark is almost 40% slower vs. Clang (not enough complete loop peeling) hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-05 21:03 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-08 14:54 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2024-01-08 14:55 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-04-24 16:02 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-04-24 16:41 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-04-24 16:44 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-04-24 16:47 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-04-24 16:51 ` xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-113235-4-GqKdviqU6D@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).