From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28628 invoked by alias); 11 Jun 2012 20:02:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 28610 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Jun 2012 20:02:55 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.3 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED 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; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 20:02:42 +0000 From: "matt at use dot net" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug middle-end/53533] [4.7 regression] loop unrolling as measured by Adobe's C++Benchmark is twice as slow versus 4.4-4.6 Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 20:02:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: major X-Bugzilla-Who: matt at use dot net X-Bugzilla-Status: WAITING X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-06/txt/msg00633.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53533 --- Comment #5 from Matt Hargett 2012-06-11 20:02:41 UTC --- Got rid of graphite options, it made no difference. I reduced the original test from the suite and attached it's source, preprocessor output from 4.6 and 4.7 (no major difference), and callgrind output. To keep things simple, I'm just using -O3 and -fwhole-program. According to callgrind, 4.7's instruction references went up by 60% and D1 misses went up by 15% at -O3 versus 4.6 at -O3. Let me know if you need any more information to continue triaging. Thanks!