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 823E83849AC1; Wed, 24 Apr 2024 16:47:04 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 823E83849AC1
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1713977224;
	bh=ksxCaKfR/4VqYPz3K+6rU2uxh6vTXOKm6A+XJI0/wP0=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=rFfJOZCeb9OpjP6VqS/Do6dF4jZE2AEis+ojgcoQCZ0Etu05ewPoHzoTmaaiuOwiS
	 W/BcBhq+s1wpzS/7uvRSLHMogrR4w6k0kC16P5CBrca/cbz0sJJYm89ZEl85ZODtLM
	 RQPFJnSRzeMmNwBUXu+zOS9HIGEL9zE3A5yofMlc=
From: "pinskia 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: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 16:47:03 +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: pinskia 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: 
Message-ID: <bug-113235-4-iriJgF6E3k@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

--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #11)
> (In reply to David Malcolm from comment #10)
> > (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #4)
> > > I keep mentioning to Larabel that he should use -fno-semantic-interpo=
sition,
> > > but he doesn't.
> >=20
> > Possibly a silly question, but how about changing the default in GCC 15=
?=20
> > What proportion of users actually make use of -fsemantic-interposition ?
>=20
> See https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/ri6czn5z8mw.fsf@suse.cz/ for
> previous discussion on this.

Sorry
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/20210606231215.49899-1-maskray@goo=
gle.com/=