public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "maltsevm at gmail dot com" <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: Mon, 04 May 2015 15:00:00 -0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-53533-4-eONxpBD872@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 --- Comment #29 from Mikhail Maltsev <maltsevm at gmail dot com> --- Results for attached testcase: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-5820K CPU @ 3.30GHz (Haswell) g++ -O3 -march=native -mtune=native 10000 iterations Clang 3.7 Total absolute time for int32_t for loop unrolling: 0.99 sec Total absolute time for int32_t do loop unrolling: 1.00 sec Total absolute time for double for loop unrolling: 1.37 sec Total absolute time for double do loop unrolling: 1.37 sec GCC 4.7.4 Total absolute time for int32_t for loop unrolling: 5.88 sec Total absolute time for int32_t do loop unrolling: 7.57 sec Total absolute time for double for loop unrolling: 2.29 sec Total absolute time for double do loop unrolling: 2.45 sec GCC 4.8.4 Total absolute time for int32_t for loop unrolling: 3.12 sec Total absolute time for int32_t do loop unrolling: 3.29 sec Total absolute time for double for loop unrolling: 1.13 sec Total absolute time for double do loop unrolling: 1.14 sec GCC 4.9.2 Total absolute time for int32_t for loop unrolling: 3.02 sec Total absolute time for int32_t do loop unrolling: 3.29 sec Total absolute time for double for loop unrolling: 1.10 sec Total absolute time for double do loop unrolling: 1.13 sec GCC 6 Total absolute time for int32_t for loop unrolling: 5.95 sec Total absolute time for int32_t do loop unrolling: 6.95 sec Total absolute time for double for loop unrolling: 2.39 sec Total absolute time for double do loop unrolling: 2.39 sec g++ -DINLINE_MANUALLY -O3 -march=native -mtune=native 50000 iterations Clang 3.7 Total absolute time for int32_t for loop unrolling: 2.43 sec Total absolute time for int32_t do loop unrolling: 2.32 sec Total absolute time for double for loop unrolling: 6.38 sec Total absolute time for double do loop unrolling: 6.38 sec GCC 4.9.2 Total absolute time for int32_t for loop unrolling: 10.17 sec Total absolute time for int32_t do loop unrolling: 10.16 sec Total absolute time for double for loop unrolling: 3.89 sec Total absolute time for double do loop unrolling: 3.90 sec GCC 6 Total absolute time for int32_t for loop unrolling: 10.10 sec Total absolute time for int32_t do loop unrolling: 10.12 sec Total absolute time for double for loop unrolling: 3.90 sec Total absolute time for double do loop unrolling: 3.89 sec g++ -DINLINE_MANUALLY -Ofast -march=native -mtune=native GCC 6 Total absolute time for int32_t for loop unrolling: 10.11 sec Total absolute time for int32_t do loop unrolling: 10.11 sec Total absolute time for double for loop unrolling: 1.14 sec Total absolute time for double do loop unrolling: 1.15 sec So, IMHO there is no regression here (at least w.r.t. vectorization). Floating point loop gets constant-folded, if reassociation is allowed. Also, GCC6 is able to infer that "for" and "while" tests are semantically equivalent and unifies them.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-05-04 15:00 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 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/53533] [4.8/4.9/5/6 " trippels at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-05-03 13:01 ` 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 [this message] 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-eONxpBD872@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).