[Bug tree-optimization/54077] New: Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang

public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed

* [Bug tree-optimization/54077] New: Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang
@ 2012-07-24  9:38 wbrana at gmail dot com
  2012-07-24  9:39 ` [Bug tree-optimization/54077] " wbrana at gmail dot com
                   ` (18 more replies)
  0 siblings, 19 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: wbrana at gmail dot com @ 2012-07-24  9:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077

             Bug #: 54077
           Summary: Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang
    Classification: Unclassified
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.7.1
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: tree-optimization
        AssignedTo: unassigned@gcc.gnu.org
        ReportedBy: wbrana@gmail.com


http://www.tux.org/~mayer/linux/nbench-byte-2.2.3.tar.gz

clang
FP EMULATION        :          405.92  :     194.78  :      44.95
gcc
FP EMULATION        :          227.32  :     109.08  :      25.17

CFLAGS = -s -Wall -O3 -g0 -march=core2 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops
-ffast-math -mssse3 -fno-PIE -fno-exceptions -fno-stack-protector


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread

* [Bug tree-optimization/54077] Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang
  2012-07-24  9:38 [Bug tree-optimization/54077] New: Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang wbrana at gmail dot com
@ 2012-07-24  9:39 ` wbrana at gmail dot com
  2012-07-24  9:41 ` wbrana at gmail dot com
                   ` (17 subsequent siblings)
  18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: wbrana at gmail dot com @ 2012-07-24  9:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077

--- Comment #1 from wbrana <wbrana at gmail dot com> 2012-07-24 09:39:37 UTC ---
Created attachment 27863
  --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27863
AddSubInternalFPF.clang.txt


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread

* [Bug tree-optimization/54077] Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang
  2012-07-24  9:38 [Bug tree-optimization/54077] New: Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang wbrana at gmail dot com
  2012-07-24  9:39 ` [Bug tree-optimization/54077] " wbrana at gmail dot com
@ 2012-07-24  9:41 ` wbrana at gmail dot com
  2012-07-24  9:42 ` wbrana at gmail dot com
                   ` (16 subsequent siblings)
  18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: wbrana at gmail dot com @ 2012-07-24  9:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077

--- Comment #2 from wbrana <wbrana at gmail dot com> 2012-07-24 09:41:21 UTC ---
Created attachment 27864
  --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27864
AddSubInternalFPF.gcc.txt


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread

* [Bug tree-optimization/54077] Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang
  2012-07-24  9:38 [Bug tree-optimization/54077] New: Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang wbrana at gmail dot com
  2012-07-24  9:39 ` [Bug tree-optimization/54077] " wbrana at gmail dot com
  2012-07-24  9:41 ` wbrana at gmail dot com
@ 2012-07-24  9:42 ` wbrana at gmail dot com
  2012-07-24  9:43 ` wbrana at gmail dot com
                   ` (15 subsequent siblings)
  18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: wbrana at gmail dot com @ 2012-07-24  9:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077

--- Comment #3 from wbrana <wbrana at gmail dot com> 2012-07-24 09:42:27 UTC ---
Created attachment 27865
  --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27865
DivideInternalFPF.clang.txt


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread

* [Bug tree-optimization/54077] Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang
  2012-07-24  9:38 [Bug tree-optimization/54077] New: Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang wbrana at gmail dot com
                   ` (2 preceding siblings ...)
  2012-07-24  9:42 ` wbrana at gmail dot com
@ 2012-07-24  9:43 ` wbrana at gmail dot com
  2012-07-31  9:36 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
                   ` (14 subsequent siblings)
  18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: wbrana at gmail dot com @ 2012-07-24  9:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077

--- Comment #4 from wbrana <wbrana at gmail dot com> 2012-07-24 09:43:38 UTC ---
Created attachment 27866
  --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27866
DivideInternalFPF.gcc.txt


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread

* [Bug tree-optimization/54077] Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang
  2012-07-24  9:38 [Bug tree-optimization/54077] New: Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang wbrana at gmail dot com
                   ` (3 preceding siblings ...)
  2012-07-24  9:43 ` wbrana at gmail dot com
@ 2012-07-31  9:36 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
  2012-07-31 10:12 ` wbrana at gmail dot com
                   ` (13 subsequent siblings)
  18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-07-31  9:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |t.artem at mailcity dot com

--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-07-31 09:35:51 UTC ---
*** Bug 54135 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread

* [Bug tree-optimization/54077] Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang
  2012-07-24  9:38 [Bug tree-optimization/54077] New: Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang wbrana at gmail dot com
                   ` (4 preceding siblings ...)
  2012-07-31  9:36 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-07-31 10:12 ` wbrana at gmail dot com
  2012-07-31 22:45 ` [Bug tree-optimization/54077] [4.7/4.8 Regression] " wbrana at gmail dot com
                   ` (12 subsequent siblings)
  18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: wbrana at gmail dot com @ 2012-07-31 10:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077

--- Comment #6 from wbrana <wbrana at gmail dot com> 2012-07-31 10:11:48 UTC ---
clang
FP EMULATION        :          405.92  :     194.78  :      44.95
4.4.7
FP EMULATION        :          337.44  :     161.92  :      37.36
4.5.4
FP EMULATION        :          320.08  :     153.59  :      35.44
4.6.3
FP EMULATION        :          320.68  :     153.88  :      35.51
4.7.1
FP EMULATION        :          227.32  :     109.08  :      25.17


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread

* [Bug tree-optimization/54077] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang
  2012-07-24  9:38 [Bug tree-optimization/54077] New: Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang wbrana at gmail dot com
                   ` (5 preceding siblings ...)
  2012-07-31 10:12 ` wbrana at gmail dot com
@ 2012-07-31 22:45 ` wbrana at gmail dot com
  2012-08-01 11:00 ` wbrana at gmail dot com
                   ` (11 subsequent siblings)
  18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: wbrana at gmail dot com @ 2012-07-31 22:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077

--- Comment #7 from wbrana <wbrana at gmail dot com> 2012-07-31 22:45:25 UTC ---
4.7 20110626
FP EMULATION        :          318.44  :     152.80  :      35.26

4.7 20110703
FP EMULATION        :          228.08  :     109.44  :      25.25


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread

* [Bug tree-optimization/54077] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang
  2012-07-24  9:38 [Bug tree-optimization/54077] New: Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang wbrana at gmail dot com
                   ` (6 preceding siblings ...)
  2012-07-31 22:45 ` [Bug tree-optimization/54077] [4.7/4.8 Regression] " wbrana at gmail dot com
@ 2012-08-01 11:00 ` wbrana at gmail dot com
  2012-08-01 18:46 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
                   ` (10 subsequent siblings)
  18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: wbrana at gmail dot com @ 2012-08-01 11:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077

--- Comment #8 from wbrana <wbrana at gmail dot com> 2012-08-01 10:59:46 UTC ---
If I didn't make mistake it seems big slow down is caused by revision 175752

Date:   Fri Jul 1 10:00:25 2011 +0000

    2011-07-01  Kai Tietz  <ktietz@redhat.com>

            * tree-ssa-forwprop.c (simplify_bitwise_binary): Fix typo.

    2011-07-01  Kai Tietz  <ktietz@redhat.com>

            * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/bitwise-sink.c: New test.

175751    
FP EMULATION        :          318.76  :     152.96  :      35.29

175752
FP EMULATION        :          227.68  :     109.25  :      25.21


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread

* [Bug tree-optimization/54077] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang
  2012-07-24  9:38 [Bug tree-optimization/54077] New: Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang wbrana at gmail dot com
                   ` (7 preceding siblings ...)
  2012-08-01 11:00 ` wbrana at gmail dot com
@ 2012-08-01 18:46 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
  2012-08-01 22:35 ` wbrana at gmail dot com
                   ` (9 subsequent siblings)
  18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: ubizjak at gmail dot com @ 2012-08-01 18:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077

Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org,
                   |                            |ubizjak at gmail dot com

--- Comment #9 from Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> 2012-08-01 18:46:34 UTC ---
Adding CC.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread

* [Bug tree-optimization/54077] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang
  2012-07-24  9:38 [Bug tree-optimization/54077] New: Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang wbrana at gmail dot com
                   ` (8 preceding siblings ...)
  2012-08-01 18:46 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
@ 2012-08-01 22:35 ` wbrana at gmail dot com
  2012-08-05 10:57 ` wbrana at gmail dot com
                   ` (8 subsequent siblings)
  18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: wbrana at gmail dot com @ 2012-08-01 22:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077

--- Comment #10 from wbrana <wbrana at gmail dot com> 2012-08-01 22:35:29 UTC ---
Reversion of 175752 on latest 4.7 branch improved FP EMU by 41%, but made
ASSIGNMENT worse by 8%.

with 175752

NUMERIC SORT        :          1562.9  :      40.08  :      13.16
STRING SORT         :          730.08  :     326.22  :      50.49
BITFIELD            :       5.956e+08  :     102.17  :      21.34
FP EMULATION        :          232.96  :     111.79  :      25.79
FOURIER             :           36191  :      41.16  :      23.12
ASSIGNMENT          :          63.469  :     241.51  :      62.64
IDEA                :            9512  :     145.48  :      43.20
HUFFMAN             :          3475.8  :      96.38  :      30.78
NEURAL NET          :          80.296  :     128.99  :      54.26
LU DECOMPOSITION    :          2696.9  :     139.71  :     100.89

without 175752

NUMERIC SORT        :          1526.9  :      39.16  :      12.86
STRING SORT         :          724.96  :     323.93  :      50.14
BITFIELD            :       5.962e+08  :     102.27  :      21.36
FP EMULATION        :          328.32  :     157.54  :      36.35
FOURIER             :           36275  :      41.26  :      23.17
ASSIGNMENT          :           58.37  :     222.11  :      57.61
IDEA                :            9480  :     144.99  :      43.05
HUFFMAN             :          3453.1  :      95.75  :      30.58
NEURAL NET          :          79.128  :     127.11  :      53.47
LU DECOMPOSITION    :          2733.4  :     141.60  :     102.25


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread

* [Bug tree-optimization/54077] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang
  2012-07-24  9:38 [Bug tree-optimization/54077] New: Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang wbrana at gmail dot com
                   ` (9 preceding siblings ...)
  2012-08-01 22:35 ` wbrana at gmail dot com
@ 2012-08-05 10:57 ` wbrana at gmail dot com
  2012-08-27  8:43 ` wbrana at gmail dot com
                   ` (7 subsequent siblings)
  18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: wbrana at gmail dot com @ 2012-08-05 10:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077

--- Comment #11 from wbrana <wbrana at gmail dot com> 2012-08-05 10:56:58 UTC ---
I found something strange. There is much smaller slow down in ASSIGNMENT
without 175752 with Gentoo Hardened patches

gcc version 4.7.2 20120804 (prerelease) (Gentoo Hardened 4.7.2 p1.2, pie-0.5.3) 
ASSIGNMENT          :           62.95  :     239.53  :      62.13

latest gcc 4.7 branch
ASSIGNMENT          :           58.29  :     221.80  :      57.53


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread

* [Bug tree-optimization/54077] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang
  2012-07-24  9:38 [Bug tree-optimization/54077] New: Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang wbrana at gmail dot com
                   ` (10 preceding siblings ...)
  2012-08-05 10:57 ` wbrana at gmail dot com
@ 2012-08-27  8:43 ` wbrana at gmail dot com
  2012-09-07 10:15 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
                   ` (6 subsequent siblings)
  18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: wbrana at gmail dot com @ 2012-08-27  8:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.7.2

--- Comment #12 from wbrana <wbrana at gmail dot com> 2012-08-27 08:42:38 UTC ---
4.8 has improved

20120813
FP EMULATION        :          229.84  :     110.29  :      25.45
20120827
FP EMULATION        :           281.4  :     135.03  :      31.16


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread

* [Bug tree-optimization/54077] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang
  2012-07-24  9:38 [Bug tree-optimization/54077] New: Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang wbrana at gmail dot com
                   ` (11 preceding siblings ...)
  2012-08-27  8:43 ` wbrana at gmail dot com
@ 2012-09-07 10:15 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
  2012-09-20 10:20 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
                   ` (5 subsequent siblings)
  18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-09-07 10:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Priority|P3                          |P2

--- Comment #13 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-09-07 10:14:28 UTC ---
I can't see any such regression on our autotesters.  They run with
-O3 -ffast-math -funroll-loops -march=native on various AMD architectures.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread

* [Bug tree-optimization/54077] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang
  2012-07-24  9:38 [Bug tree-optimization/54077] New: Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang wbrana at gmail dot com
                   ` (12 preceding siblings ...)
  2012-09-07 10:15 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-09-20 10:20 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
  2012-10-04 14:25 ` wbrana at gmail dot com
                   ` (4 subsequent siblings)
  18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-09-20 10:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|4.7.2                       |4.7.3

--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-09-20 10:13:55 UTC ---
GCC 4.7.2 has been released.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread

* [Bug tree-optimization/54077] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang
  2012-07-24  9:38 [Bug tree-optimization/54077] New: Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang wbrana at gmail dot com
                   ` (13 preceding siblings ...)
  2012-09-20 10:20 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-10-04 14:25 ` wbrana at gmail dot com
  2012-11-11 16:37 ` [Bug tree-optimization/54077] Bytemark FP EMULATION 9%-15% " wbrana at gmail dot com
                   ` (3 subsequent siblings)
  18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: wbrana at gmail dot com @ 2012-10-04 14:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077

--- Comment #15 from wbrana <wbrana at gmail dot com> 2012-10-04 14:25:29 UTC ---
I can reliably reproduce bug on Core 2.
Reverting 175752 reliably fixes bug.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread

* [Bug tree-optimization/54077] Bytemark FP EMULATION 9%-15% slower than with clang
  2012-07-24  9:38 [Bug tree-optimization/54077] New: Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang wbrana at gmail dot com
                   ` (14 preceding siblings ...)
  2012-10-04 14:25 ` wbrana at gmail dot com
@ 2012-11-11 16:37 ` wbrana at gmail dot com
  2012-11-12 13:17 ` wbrana at gmail dot com
                   ` (2 subsequent siblings)
  18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: wbrana at gmail dot com @ 2012-11-11 16:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077

wbrana <wbrana at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|[4.7/4.8 Regression]        |Bytemark FP EMULATION
                   |Bytemark FP EMULATION 44%   |9%-15% slower than with
                   |slower than with clang      |clang

--- Comment #16 from wbrana <wbrana at gmail dot com> 2012-11-11 16:36:40 UTC ---
on newer CPU

clang 3.1
FP EMULATION        :          594.52  :     285.28  :      65.83
gcc 4.8 branch
FP EMULATION        :             544  :     261.04  :      60.23
gcc 4.7 branch
FP EMULATION        :          520.32  :     249.67  :      57.61
gcc 4.6 branch
FP EMULATION        :          507.84  :     243.69  :      56.23

reverting of 175752 has no effect on 4.7 in case of FP EMU


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread

* [Bug tree-optimization/54077] Bytemark FP EMULATION 9%-15% slower than with clang
  2012-07-24  9:38 [Bug tree-optimization/54077] New: Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang wbrana at gmail dot com
                   ` (15 preceding siblings ...)
  2012-11-11 16:37 ` [Bug tree-optimization/54077] Bytemark FP EMULATION 9%-15% " wbrana at gmail dot com
@ 2012-11-12 13:17 ` wbrana at gmail dot com
  2013-04-11  7:59 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
  2014-06-12 13:53 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
  18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: wbrana at gmail dot com @ 2012-11-12 13:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077

--- Comment #17 from wbrana <wbrana at gmail dot com> 2012-11-12 13:17:08 UTC ---
there is another bug caused by revision 175752
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread

* [Bug tree-optimization/54077] Bytemark FP EMULATION 9%-15% slower than with clang
  2012-07-24  9:38 [Bug tree-optimization/54077] New: Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang wbrana at gmail dot com
                   ` (16 preceding siblings ...)
  2012-11-12 13:17 ` wbrana at gmail dot com
@ 2013-04-11  7:59 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
  2014-06-12 13:53 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
  18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-04-11  7:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|4.7.3                       |4.7.4

--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-04-11 07:59:03 UTC ---
GCC 4.7.3 is being released, adjusting target milestone.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread

* [Bug tree-optimization/54077] Bytemark FP EMULATION 9%-15% slower than with clang
  2012-07-24  9:38 [Bug tree-optimization/54077] New: Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang wbrana at gmail dot com
                   ` (17 preceding siblings ...)
  2013-04-11  7:59 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-06-12 13:53 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
  18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-06-12 13:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|4.7.4                       |---

--- Comment #19 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Unsetting target milestone of open non-regression bug from version of branch
being closed.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2014-06-12 13:53 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-07-24  9:38 [Bug tree-optimization/54077] New: Bytemark FP EMULATION 44% slower than with clang wbrana at gmail dot com
2012-07-24  9:39 ` [Bug tree-optimization/54077] " wbrana at gmail dot com
2012-07-24  9:41 ` wbrana at gmail dot com
2012-07-24  9:42 ` wbrana at gmail dot com
2012-07-24  9:43 ` wbrana at gmail dot com
2012-07-31  9:36 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-07-31 10:12 ` wbrana at gmail dot com
2012-07-31 22:45 ` [Bug tree-optimization/54077] [4.7/4.8 Regression] " wbrana at gmail dot com
2012-08-01 11:00 ` wbrana at gmail dot com
2012-08-01 18:46 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2012-08-01 22:35 ` wbrana at gmail dot com
2012-08-05 10:57 ` wbrana at gmail dot com
2012-08-27  8:43 ` wbrana at gmail dot com
2012-09-07 10:15 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-09-20 10:20 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-04 14:25 ` wbrana at gmail dot com
2012-11-11 16:37 ` [Bug tree-optimization/54077] Bytemark FP EMULATION 9%-15% " wbrana at gmail dot com
2012-11-12 13:17 ` wbrana at gmail dot com
2013-04-11  7:59 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-06-12 13:53 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org

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).