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 9187D3858D1E; Fri,  5 Jan 2024 20:26:46 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 9187D3858D1E
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1704486406;
	bh=4C4OENbmBWk16zCdyTB9K+tFGtM4a9RE74S5jLdJRNQ=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=uoc2bn5D/upKYOL/yDTtB5QVYA6NM2ysZ2oFYPpHu6RYkq6bAeW9mBv/eQaXqakvA
	 P86+m9D2FgmeWtkkiRPVtBtaW5RuaSa3EIL2rKeJXN2nix+Iv2y8mUXk4EhC7DGixU
	 p9npSVFw1puFYs+Zy8oM90oZ3QtPdDySCU7mqb3A=
From: "hubicka 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: Fri, 05 Jan 2024 20:26:46 +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: hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
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: short_desc
Message-ID: <bug-113235-4-MDadCLsrXo@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-113235-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-113235-4@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=3D113235

Jan Hubicka <hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|SMHasher SHA3-256 benchmark |SMHasher SHA3-256 benchmark
                   |is almost 40% slower vs.    |is almost 40% slower vs.
                   |Clang                       |Clang (not enough complete
                   |                            |loop peeling)

--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
On my zen3 machine default build gets me 180MB/S
-O3 -flto -funroll-all-loops gets me 193MB/s
-O3 -flto --param max-completely-peel-times=3D30 gets me 382MB/s, speedup i=
s gone
with --param max-completely-peel-times=3D20, default is 16.=