From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-233975-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 29384 invoked by alias); 1 Nov 2007 04:26:18 -0000
Received: (qmail 29266 invoked by uid 48); 1 Nov 2007 04:25:57 -0000
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 04:26:00 -0000
Subject: [Bug middle-end/33966]  New: Revision 129625 caused 1% slowdown on 200.sixtrack
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
Message-ID: <bug-33966-682@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
From: "hjl at lucon dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2007-11/txt/msg00012.txt.bz2

Revision 129625

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2007-10/msg00730.html

caused 11% drop in performance for 200.sixtrack in SPEC CPU 2000
with -O2 -ffast-math on Core 2 Duo 64bit. That patch caused very
different codes generated for 200.sixtrack on x86-64.


-- 
           Summary: Revision 129625 caused 1% slowdown on 200.sixtrack
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.3.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: middle-end
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: hjl at lucon dot org
GCC target triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33966