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 0D7793857C65; Wed, 10 Jan 2024 13:41:39 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 0D7793857C65
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1704894100;
	bh=I4QbXUdc67kLJG4KH9668OoJA3wqVJ49S2VfIHW2fR4=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=OSbJmPY1hztDwD6vrs92P4hDpvKyr85JUj1T4hgUXDgLLLTGdClTUWn0et0TxIJCC
	 AsHLESlencihIKfb2ft+Yt8HQbBCH0SarorTc6uMGM2eFmqH5aSQvAcDBUe4oZAZhz
	 KXiwde4mzhXdYBCCorjUeyqxKGCPC6MF5YDoan0w=
From: "rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/113247] RISC-V: Performance bug in SHA256 after enabling
 RVV vectorization
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 13:41:39 +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: rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
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-113247-4-pqMoyK9bHl@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-113247-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-113247-4@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=3D113247

--- Comment #9 from Robin Dapp <rdapp at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I also noticed this (likely unwanted) vector snippet and wondered where it =
is
being created.  First I thought it's a vec_extract but doesn't look like it=
.=20
I'm going to check why we create this.

Pan, the test was on real hardware I suppose?  So regardless of the fact th=
at
we likely want to get rid of the snippet above, would you mind checking whe=
ther
generic-ooo has any effect on performance?  Maybe you could try -march=3Drv=
64gc
-mtune=3Dgeneric-ooo.  Thanks.=