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 748263844763; Fri, 10 May 2024 03:15:05 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 748263844763
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1715310905;
	bh=38WN2HPQUOo1QRv08jlO06St3LJ3rpgD6ngfW+PpK1M=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=ezx+zcpvG8y88/I97T5rt2K3GxmAIu+7YCL4T5af/+fSVY7nTzSD6DJcPB84jaU7a
	 M5epvtb5ttSIiVp6D3JERMWE+Lu0EcsJODu4v646xjxddBfF8GzAN1MB++jGGIFrYm
	 hLc6sETXwL94t0Z/D6ImDAWq49sNBUgnHAzinrAk=
From: "chenglulu at loongson dot cn" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/114978] [14/15 regression] 548.exchange2_r 14%-28%
 regressions on Loongarch64 after gcc 14 snapshot 20240317
Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 03:15:04 +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: needs-bisection
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: chenglulu at loongson dot cn
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: 14.2
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-114978-4-2eVnsihrdK@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-114978-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-114978-4@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=3D114978

--- Comment #15 from chenglulu <chenglulu at loongson dot cn> ---
(In reply to Chen Chen from comment #14)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #13)
> > (In reply to Chen Chen from comment #12)
> >=20
> > > No. I used system default gcc.
> >=20
> > AOSC backports *many* changes not in upstream GCC 13.2 to their "13.2":
> > https://github.com/AOSC-Dev/aosc-os-abbs/tree/stable/core-devel/gcc/01-
> > runtime/patches
> >=20
> > So the default GCC is simply not GCC 13.2.
>=20
> You are correct. The above 13.2 results should be "AOSC system default gcc
> 13.2" results. Under AOSC system I recompiled official gcc 13.2 source wi=
th
> the same parameters except for "--with-tune=3Dla664" (changed to
> "--with-tune=3Dla464" since gcc 13.2 does not support "LA664" architectur=
e).
> The test results from official gcc 13.2 are following:
>=20
> -g -Ofast -march=3Dnative      : 6.54 (400s)
> -g -Ofast -march=3Dnative -flto: 6.57 (399s)
> -g -Ofast -march=3Dla464       : 6.46 (405s)
> -g -Ofast -march=3Dla464 -flto : 6.57 (399s)

The data of r13.2 I tested is similar to this. I am currently testing gcc w=
ith
the AOSC patch.=