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 4989D385840D; Wed, 24 Apr 2024 16:02:29 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 4989D385840D
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1713974549;
	bh=cuHAXLwwoG47zhLf5PUwWOUJym29REPPP8PHbD/7w20=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=jUVCIdJsg9nKUq/CxLPL0IfsArAU2mI7CjRnHpuyWNQpg+NMpLfdY8Zg9JVs6+gN0
	 NNTpLU4s67iRO1l9zXVeRRC5cL1xdyu8LCJ8f61rL1li7aWxR6JYjO8yZP7gfFghBZ
	 eTIOKapgd/is++1935sHYiRnzuFF0OrzbwgOdLDk=
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: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 16:02:28 +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: 
Message-ID: <bug-113235-4-kezX47llPC@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 #9 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Phoronix still claims the difference
https://www.phoronix.com/review/gcc14-clang18-amd-zen4/2=