public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "vmakarov at redhat dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/55278] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Botan performance regressions apparently due to LRA Date: Thu, 09 May 2013 20:35:00 -0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-55278-4-8PmBVz0u9P@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-55278-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55278 --- Comment #11 from Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov at redhat dot com> --- I don't see a code degradation because of LRA. Here what I got using gcc4.8 branch compiler with options -O3 -finline-functions -D_REENTRANT -Wno-long-long -W -Wall -fPIC -fvisibility=hidden on Xeon X5660 and i7-2600 (sandy bridge): 64-bit: real=16.78 user=16.57 system=0.00 real=16.39 user=16.20 system=0.00 real=16.81 user=16.57 system=0.00 real=16.35 user=16.20 system=0.00 real=16.82 user=16.56 system=0.00 real=16.40 user=16.20 system=0.00 real=7.37 user=7.34 system=0.00 real=7.05 user=7.02 system=0.00 real=7.34 user=7.31 system=0.00 real=7.05 user=7.02 system=0.00 real=7.37 user=7.31 system=0.00 real=7.05 user=7.02 system=0.00 32-bit: real=15.46 user=15.22 system=0.00 share=98%% real=14.53 user=14.21 system=0.00 share=97%% real=15.77 user=15.41 system=0.00 share=97%% real=14.49 user=14.23 system=0.00 share=98%% real=15.57 user=15.22 system=0.00 share=97%% real=14.51 user=14.23 system=0.00 share=98%% real=10.17 user=10.13 system=0.00 real=7.76 user=7.73 system=0.00 real=10.17 user=10.13 system=0.00 real=7.76 user=7.73 system=0.00 real=10.17 user=10.13 system=0.00 real=7.76 user=7.73 system=0.00 The first run is for gcc-4.8 with reload the second run with LRA. It is repeated 3 times. LRA generates a better code for this test on both CPU in 32 and 64-bit mode. Although LLVM new reg allocator might generate better code than LRA or reload or may be there is another reason for this. To be honest I don't know. I looked at http://gcc.opensuse.org/c++bench/botan/botan-summary.txt-1-0.html and I see that KASUMI was improved about October. I worked on botan after LRA merge and as I remember some benchmarked became worse, some were improved but in overall (run time for all algorithms) was about the same. I don't have 3.3 LLVM but I using 3.2 I am getting on i7-2600 7.378s(64-bit) and 7.234s (32-bit) using the option above vs 7.02s and 7.73s for gcc4.8 (LRA). So I can not confirm the big difference on KASUMI reported on http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=llvm_32_egging&num=2. It seems to me phoronix is very LLVM biased and that is not good for its credibility.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-05-09 20:35 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2012-11-11 23:54 [Bug rtl-optimization/55278] New: " hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-23 19:38 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/55278] [4.8 Regression] " steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-25 10:21 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/55278] [4.8/4.9 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-25 11:03 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-05-07 22:31 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-05-07 22:31 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-05-07 22:34 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-05-07 22:48 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-05-08 6:58 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-05-09 13:59 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-05-09 20:35 ` vmakarov at redhat dot com [this message] 2013-05-12 17:36 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/55278] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Botan performance regressions, other compilers generate better code than gcc ubizjak at gmail dot com 2013-05-31 11:01 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-10-16 9:49 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-05-22 9:06 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/55278] [4.8/4.9/4.10 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-12-19 13:28 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/55278] [4.8/4.9/5 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-06-23 8:21 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/55278] [4.8/4.9/5/6 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-06-26 19:57 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/55278] [4.9/5/6 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-06-26 20:29 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-05-14 9:46 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/55278] [9/10/11/12 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-06-01 8:05 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-07-08 18:00 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com 2022-05-27 9:34 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/55278] [10/11/12/13 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-06-15 7:32 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-06-28 10:30 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-03-16 0:05 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-07-07 10:29 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/55278] [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-55278-4-8PmBVz0u9P@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).