public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "solar-gcc at openwall dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/51017] GCC 4.6 performance regression (vs. 4.4/4.5), PRE increases register pressure Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 02:21:00 -0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-51017-4-TXNwJtkXuC@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-51017-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51017 --- Comment #12 from Alexander Peslyak <solar-gcc at openwall dot com> --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #11) > I wonder if you could share the exact CPU type you are using? This is on (dual) Xeon E5420 (using only one core for these benchmarks), but there was similar slowdown with GCC 4.6 on other Core 2'ish CPUs as well (such as desktop Core 2 Duo CPUs). You might not call these "modern". > Note that we have to use movups because [...] Thank you for looking into this. I still have a question, though: does this mean you're treating older GCC's behavior, where it dared to use movaps anyway, a bug? I was under impression that with most SSE*/AVX* intrinsics (except for those explicitly defined to do unaligned loads/stores) natural alignment is assumed and is supposed to be provided by the programmer. Not only with GCC, but with compilers for x86(-64) in general. I thought this was part of the contract: I use intrinsics and I guarantee alignment. (Things would certainly not work for me at least with older GCC if I assumed the compiler would use unaligned loads whenever it was unsure of alignment.) Was I wrong, or has this changed (in GCC? or in some compiler-neutral specification?), or is GCC wrong in not assuming alignment now? Is there a command-line option to ask GCC to assume alignment, like it did before?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-02-17 2:21 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2011-11-08 0:43 [Bug middle-end/51017] New: GCC 4.6 performance regression (vs. 4.4/4.5) solar-gcc at openwall dot com 2011-11-08 0:57 ` [Bug middle-end/51017] " solar-gcc at openwall dot com 2011-11-08 1:05 ` solar-gcc at openwall dot com 2011-12-15 0:34 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-03 4:46 ` solar-gcc at openwall dot com 2012-01-04 19:39 ` solar-gcc at openwall dot com 2012-01-04 22:43 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-04 23:00 ` solar-gcc at openwall dot com 2015-02-09 0:12 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-02-16 0:08 ` solar-gcc at openwall dot com 2015-02-16 1:10 ` solar-gcc at openwall dot com 2015-02-16 10:51 ` [Bug tree-optimization/51017] GCC 4.6 performance regression (vs. 4.4/4.5), PRE increases register pressure rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-02-17 2:21 ` solar-gcc at openwall dot com [this message] 2015-02-17 2:56 ` solar-gcc at openwall dot com 2015-02-17 3:11 ` solar-gcc at openwall dot com 2015-02-17 9:25 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-02-17 9:27 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-02-18 0:03 ` solar-gcc at openwall dot com 2015-02-18 1:25 ` solar-gcc at openwall dot com 2015-02-18 3:20 ` solar-gcc at openwall dot com 2015-02-18 10:32 ` [Bug tree-optimization/51017] [4.8/4.9/5 Regression] GCC performance regression (vs. 4.4/4.5), PRE increases register pressure too much rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-02-18 11:09 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-02-25 14:26 ` law at redhat dot com 2015-06-23 8:14 ` [Bug tree-optimization/51017] [4.8/4.9/5/6 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-06-26 20:04 ` [Bug tree-optimization/51017] [4.9/5/6 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-06-26 20:33 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-05-14 9:46 ` [Bug tree-optimization/51017] [9/10/11/12 Regression] GCC performance regression (vs. 4.4/4.5), PRE/LIM increase " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-06-01 8:05 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-05-27 9:34 ` [Bug tree-optimization/51017] [10/11/12/13 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-06-28 10:30 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-07-07 10:29 ` [Bug tree-optimization/51017] [11/12/13/14 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=bug-51017-4-TXNwJtkXuC@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).