public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "joey.ye at arm dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/60172] ARM performance regression from trunk@207239
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 11:19:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-60172-4-1oFVX0Bl87@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-60172-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
--- Comment #10 from Joey Ye <joey.ye at arm dot com> ---
(In reply to rguenther@suse.de from comment #9)
> On Mon, 17 Feb 2014, joey.ye at arm dot com wrote:
>
>
> But that doesn't make sense - it means that -fdisable-tree-forwprop4
> should get numbers back to good speed, no? Because that's the
> only change forwprop4 does.
-fdisable-tree-forwprop4 dooms other transformation and results slightly worse
code than before. So the number isn't back to the best. I think forwprop4 does
some good stuff here and disabling it isn't the solution.
>
> For completeness please base checks on r207316 (it contains a fix
> for the blamed revision, but as far as I can see it shouldn't make
> a difference for the testcase).
I'm playing with r207686 and it is the same for this case.
>
> Did you check whether my hackish patch fixes things?
I did with trunk 20140208. But it didn't make any difference to Proc_8
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-02-19 11:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-02-13 9:54 [Bug tree-optimization/60172] New: " joey.ye at arm dot com
2014-02-14 8:20 ` [Bug tree-optimization/60172] " joey.ye at arm dot com
2014-02-14 10:22 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-02-14 10:50 ` joey.ye at arm dot com
2014-02-14 12:19 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-02-14 14:03 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-02-17 9:56 ` joey.ye at arm dot com
2014-02-17 10:07 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2014-02-19 11:19 ` joey.ye at arm dot com [this message]
2014-02-19 11:21 ` joey.ye at arm dot com
2014-02-19 23:06 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-02-20 10:02 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2014-04-14 7:58 ` [Bug tree-optimization/60172] [4.9/4.10 Regression] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-05-09 8:51 ` thomas.preudhomme at arm dot com
2014-05-15 3:29 ` thomas.preudhomme at arm dot com
2014-05-15 8:01 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-05-15 8:54 ` thomas.preudhomme at arm dot com
2014-05-15 9:51 ` thomas.preudhomme at arm dot com
2014-05-15 10:12 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2014-06-18 14:21 ` bpringlemeir at gmail dot com
2014-06-18 15:15 ` bpringlemeir at gmail dot com
2014-07-16 13:28 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-10-30 10:40 ` [Bug tree-optimization/60172] [4.9/5 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-13 14:55 ` joey.ye at arm dot com
2015-06-26 19:59 ` [Bug tree-optimization/60172] [4.9/5/6 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-06-26 20:30 ` jakub 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-60172-4-1oFVX0Bl87@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).