public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/57534] [4.8. 4.9 Regression]: Performance regression versus 4.7.3, 4.8.1 is ~15% slower
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2013 20:12:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-57534-4-FV5dZqEGpR@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-57534-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57534

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
                   |                            |wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Started with SLSR addition, guess you can get the performance back with
-fno-tree-slsr.  Anyway, I wonder why ivopts hasn't created TARGET_MEM_REFs for
these, I bet then SLSR wouldn't change those.


  parent reply	other threads:[~2013-06-05 20:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-06-05 17:38 [Bug rtl-optimization/57534] New: " ncahill_alt at yahoo dot com
2013-06-05 17:48 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/57534] " ncahill_alt at yahoo dot com
2013-06-05 18:27 ` [Bug tree-optimization/57534] [4.8. 4.9 Regression]: " ubizjak at gmail dot com
2013-06-05 20:12 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2013-06-05 20:27 ` ncahill_alt at yahoo dot com
2013-06-05 20:33 ` ncahill_alt at yahoo dot com
2013-06-09 17:47 ` [Bug tree-optimization/57534] [4.8/4.9 " ncahill_alt at yahoo dot com
2013-10-16  9:51 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-10-30 12:51 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-05-22  9:06 ` [Bug tree-optimization/57534] [4.8/4.9/4.10 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-12-19 13:44 ` [Bug tree-optimization/57534] [4.8/4.9/5 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-06-23  8:28 ` [Bug tree-optimization/57534] [4.8/4.9/5/6 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-06-26 20:19 ` [Bug tree-optimization/57534] [4.9/5/6 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-06-26 20:39 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-03-12 11:58 ` [Bug tree-optimization/57534] [8/9/10 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-05-04 12:32 ` [Bug tree-optimization/57534] [8/9/10/11/12 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-06-01  8:05 ` [Bug tree-optimization/57534] [9/10/11/12 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-27  9:34 ` [Bug tree-optimization/57534] [10/11/12/13 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-06-28 10:30 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-07-07 10:29 ` [Bug tree-optimization/57534] [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-57534-4-FV5dZqEGpR@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: link
Be 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).