public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "trippels at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/53533] [4.8/4.9/5/6 regression] vectorization causes loop unrolling test slowdown as measured by Adobe's C++Benchmark
Date: Sun, 03 May 2015 13:00:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-53533-4-Zzx7gswD1n@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-53533-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53533
Markus Trippelsdorf <trippels at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last reconfirmed|2012-05-31 00:00:00 |2015-5-3
CC| |trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #26 from Markus Trippelsdorf <trippels at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
For gcc-5 and gcc-6 there is an additional 50% slowdown:
% g++ -O3 loop_unroll.ii -o loop_unroll
% time ./loop_unroll 10000
./loop_unroll 10000
test description absolute operations ratio with
number time per second test0
0 "int32_t for loop unroll 1" 0.14 sec 552.30 M 1.00
1 "int32_t for loop unroll 2" 0.11 sec 699.49 M 0.79
2 "int32_t for loop unroll 3" 0.14 sec 566.56 M 0.97
3 "int32_t for loop unroll 4" 0.15 sec 532.87 M 1.04
4 "int32_t for loop unroll 5" 0.10 sec 784.70 M 0.70
5 "int32_t for loop unroll 6" 0.09 sec 887.12 M 0.62
6 "int32_t for loop unroll 7" 0.09 sec 913.50 M 0.60
7 "int32_t for loop unroll 8" 0.08 sec 986.45 M 0.56
8 "int32_t for loop unroll 9" 0.23 sec 346.06 M 1.60
9 "int32_t for loop unroll 10" 0.08 sec 1040.06 M 0.53
10 "int32_t for loop unroll 11" 0.23 sec 348.02 M 1.59
11 "int32_t for loop unroll 12" 0.23 sec 353.38 M 1.56
12 "int32_t for loop unroll 13" 0.24 sec 338.32 M 1.63
13 "int32_t for loop unroll 14" 0.24 sec 332.32 M 1.66
14 "int32_t for loop unroll 15" 0.25 sec 321.15 M 1.72
15 "int32_t for loop unroll 16" 0.25 sec 318.23 M 1.74
16 "int32_t for loop unroll 17" 0.24 sec 329.43 M 1.68
17 "int32_t for loop unroll 18" 0.25 sec 321.34 M 1.72
18 "int32_t for loop unroll 19" 0.25 sec 314.53 M 1.76
19 "int32_t for loop unroll 20" 0.25 sec 325.33 M 1.70
20 "int32_t for loop unroll 21" 0.25 sec 323.67 M 1.71
21 "int32_t for loop unroll 22" 0.25 sec 316.85 M 1.74
22 "int32_t for loop unroll 23" 0.25 sec 323.51 M 1.71
23 "int32_t for loop unroll 24" 0.06 sec 1257.94 M 0.44
24 "int32_t for loop unroll 25" 0.24 sec 327.77 M 1.69
25 "int32_t for loop unroll 26" 0.06 sec 1310.44 M 0.42
26 "int32_t for loop unroll 27" 0.07 sec 1072.85 M 0.51
27 "int32_t for loop unroll 28" 0.28 sec 283.44 M 1.95
28 "int32_t for loop unroll 29" 0.30 sec 267.96 M 2.06
29 "int32_t for loop unroll 30" 0.31 sec 258.88 M 2.13
30 "int32_t for loop unroll 31" 0.06 sec 1337.64 M 0.41
31 "int32_t for loop unroll 32" 0.06 sec 1315.10 M 0.42
Total absolute time for int32_t for loop unrolling: 5.85 sec
...
./loop_unroll 10000 41.43s user 0.00s system 100% cpu 41.426 total
==============================================================================
% /usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/4.9.2/g++ -O3 loop_unroll.ii -o loop_unroll
% time ./loop_unroll 10000
./loop_unroll 10000
test description absolute operations ratio with
number time per second test0
0 "int32_t for loop unroll 1" 0.14 sec 582.13 M 1.00
1 "int32_t for loop unroll 2" 0.13 sec 625.41 M 0.93
2 "int32_t for loop unroll 3" 0.13 sec 635.76 M 0.92
3 "int32_t for loop unroll 4" 0.13 sec 625.41 M 0.93
4 "int32_t for loop unroll 5" 0.12 sec 640.96 M 0.91
5 "int32_t for loop unroll 6" 0.09 sec 888.11 M 0.66
6 "int32_t for loop unroll 7" 0.09 sec 900.10 M 0.65
7 "int32_t for loop unroll 8" 0.10 sec 832.20 M 0.70
8 "int32_t for loop unroll 9" 0.10 sec 834.22 M 0.70
9 "int32_t for loop unroll 10" 0.09 sec 902.04 M 0.65
10 "int32_t for loop unroll 11" 0.10 sec 805.15 M 0.72
11 "int32_t for loop unroll 12" 0.10 sec 823.27 M 0.71
12 "int32_t for loop unroll 13" 0.09 sec 860.51 M 0.68
13 "int32_t for loop unroll 14" 0.11 sec 753.59 M 0.77
14 "int32_t for loop unroll 15" 0.10 sec 781.96 M 0.74
15 "int32_t for loop unroll 16" 0.09 sec 858.76 M 0.68
16 "int32_t for loop unroll 17" 0.09 sec 846.91 M 0.69
17 "int32_t for loop unroll 18" 0.10 sec 783.19 M 0.74
18 "int32_t for loop unroll 19" 0.10 sec 794.81 M 0.73
19 "int32_t for loop unroll 20" 0.10 sec 806.70 M 0.72
20 "int32_t for loop unroll 21" 0.10 sec 823.82 M 0.71
21 "int32_t for loop unroll 22" 0.09 sec 851.74 M 0.68
22 "int32_t for loop unroll 23" 0.10 sec 792.87 M 0.73
23 "int32_t for loop unroll 24" 0.10 sec 809.32 M 0.72
24 "int32_t for loop unroll 25" 0.10 sec 832.18 M 0.70
25 "int32_t for loop unroll 26" 0.10 sec 781.11 M 0.75
26 "int32_t for loop unroll 27" 0.10 sec 792.40 M 0.73
27 "int32_t for loop unroll 28" 0.10 sec 817.22 M 0.71
28 "int32_t for loop unroll 29" 0.10 sec 826.40 M 0.70
29 "int32_t for loop unroll 30" 0.10 sec 803.83 M 0.72
30 "int32_t for loop unroll 31" 0.10 sec 803.48 M 0.72
31 "int32_t for loop unroll 32" 0.10 sec 796.88 M 0.73
Total absolute time for int32_t for loop unrolling: 3.28 sec
...
./loop_unroll 10000 22.75s user 0.00s system 100% cpu 22.746 total
clang:
./loop_unroll 10000 12.93s user 0.00s system 100% cpu 12.933 total
icpc (5* faster than gcc-5):
./loop_unroll 10000 8.38s user 0.00s system 99% cpu 8.382 total
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-05-03 13:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-05-31 0:55 [Bug middle-end/53533] New: [4.7 regression] loop unrolling as measured by Adobe's C++Benchmark is twice as slow versus 4.4-4.6 matt at use dot net
2012-05-31 0:58 ` [Bug middle-end/53533] " matt at use dot net
2012-05-31 9:59 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-06-11 19:56 ` matt at use dot net
2012-06-11 19:57 ` matt at use dot net
2012-06-11 20:02 ` matt at use dot net
2012-06-12 9:54 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/53533] [4.7/4.8 regression] vectorization causes loop unrolling test slowdown as measured by Adobe's C++Benchmark rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-06-12 10:12 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-06-12 10:27 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-06-12 10:39 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-06-12 11:57 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-06-12 18:26 ` matt at use dot net
2012-06-12 18:55 ` rth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-06-13 9:44 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-06-14 14:39 ` rth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-06-14 18:02 ` matt at use dot net
2012-06-14 18:39 ` rth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-06-15 9:04 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-06-15 21:05 ` rth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-08-10 9:43 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-08-14 17:26 ` matt at use dot net
2012-08-20 23:53 ` matt at use dot net
2012-09-20 10:27 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-11-29 21:17 ` rth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-12-03 15:27 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-04-11 8:00 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/53533] [4.7/4.8/4.9 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-06-12 13:45 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/53533] [4.7/4.8/4.9/4.10 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-12-19 13:28 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/53533] [4.8/4.9/5 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-05-03 13:00 ` trippels at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2015-05-03 13:01 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/53533] [4.8/4.9/5/6 " trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-05-04 14:46 ` maltsevm at gmail dot com
2015-05-04 15:00 ` maltsevm at gmail dot com
2015-06-23 8:22 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-06-26 19:58 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/53533] [4.9/5/6 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-06-26 20:29 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-02-23 12:24 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/53533] [8/9/10/11 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-05-14 9:46 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/53533] [9/10/11/12 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-06-01 8:05 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-27 9:34 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/53533] [10/11/12/13 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-30 6:40 ` crazylht at gmail dot com
2022-05-30 8:57 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2022-05-30 9:10 ` crazylht at gmail dot com
2022-05-30 9:14 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2022-06-16 1:29 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-06-16 2:31 ` crazylht at gmail dot com
2022-06-28 10:30 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-07-07 10:29 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/53533] [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-53533-4-Zzx7gswD1n@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: link
Be 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).