From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-397246-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 16780 invoked by alias); 24 Jul 2012 09:23:07 -0000
Received: (qmail 16754 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Jul 2012 09:23:04 -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; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 09:22:46 +0000
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/54073] [4.7/4.8 Regression] SciMark Monte Carlo test performance has seriously decreased in recent GCC releases
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 09:23:00 -0000
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 CC Known to work Summary Ever Confirmed Known to fail
Message-ID: <bug-54073-4-Sj0gqnQBha@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-54073-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-54073-4@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
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: 2012-07/txt/msg01832.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54073

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2012-07-24
                 CC|                            |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
      Known to work|                            |4.6.4
            Summary|SciMark Monte Carlo test    |[4.7/4.8 Regression]
                   |performance has seriously   |SciMark Monte Carlo test
                   |decreased in recent GCC     |performance has seriously
                   |releases                    |decreased in recent GCC
                   |                            |releases
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
      Known to fail|                            |4.7.0, 4.8.0

--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-07-24 09:22:45 UTC ---
Our autotesters have a jump of this magnitude between

K8:   good r171332, bad r171367
K10:  good r171399, bad r171360
IA64: good r182218, bad r182265

needs further bisection, there are a few candidates within the 171399:171360
range.  IA64 is supposedly sth else (the fix for PR21617 pops up here).

Confirmed at least.