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 3201B384AB58; Wed, 24 Apr 2024 16:41:41 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 3201B384AB58
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1713976901;
	bh=cnBDQSPEV1yuh1zlNM27ZqtNkWCE8a6ABBUdaKx46HQ=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=qa2ht94pdpGP2kdWvR/iG0B2OFboLLBQmmCNrj2QqUAYl8GAQVhsQ22eTVimA1GhT
	 cykscos1z20r0zvh5T2BHYRvvMn1k9hzQZiiRWzdr1cVJEP7mSQTEKEcU8sD0zSq9b
	 xz8UGSwiNO8bsoZpOo730ik1dIpTbzlWOs3k2s9c=
From: "dmalcolm 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 16:41:40 +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: dmalcolm 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: cc
Message-ID: <bug-113235-4-k1mCNz92ne@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

David Malcolm <dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

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

--- Comment #10 from David Malcolm <dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #4)
> I keep mentioning to Larabel that he should use -fno-semantic-interpositi=
on,
> but he doesn't.

Possibly a silly question, but how about changing the default in GCC 15?  W=
hat
proportion of users actually make use of -fsemantic-interposition ?=