From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-359925-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 25795 invoked by alias); 16 Jun 2011 15:23:22 -0000
Received: (qmail 25785 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Jun 2011 15:23:20 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.7 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,TW_VS
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 15:23:07 +0000
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/49442] [4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] Misaligned store support pessimization
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Status Last reconfirmed Ever Confirmed
Message-ID: <bug-49442-4-2HUAC6hpX0@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-49442-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-49442-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 15:23:00 -0000
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: 2011-06/txt/msg01451.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49442

Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2011.06.16 15:23:05
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-06-16 15:23:05 UTC ---
Does -mtune=barcelona improve it?  What Intel CPUs?  I suppose the vectorizer
cost model could be adjusted for -mtune=generic?  I suppose the old rev.
is equivalent to -fno-tree-vectorize?

On AMD K8 I get

38.26user 0.12system 0:38.42elapsed 99%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k

with vectorization and

31.09user 0.08system 0:31.21elapsed 99%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k

without.  With -mtune=barcelona I get

37.08user 0.20system 0:37.39elapsed 99%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k

and the following with native tuning

32.93user 0.25system 0:33.20elapsed 99%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k

(movlpd instead of movsd and incl instead of add difference to generic only).
So, confirmed on AMD K8 as well.