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: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 09:56:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-60172-4-a4eegUrGhm@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 #7 from Joey Ye <joey.ye at arm dot com> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> (In reply to Joey Ye from comment #4)
> > -fdisable-tree-forwprop4 doesn't help. -fno-tree-ter makes it even worse.
> 
> The former is strange because it's the only pass that does sth that is
> changed by the patch?  As said, make sure to include the fix for PR59993
> in your testing.
> 
> Does -fno-tree-forwprop fix the regression?

I'm sorry what I meant was: -fdisable-tree-forwprop4 didn't make benchmark
faster. Actually with -fdisable-tree-forwprop4 both revision before/after
207239 get the same lower score.

207239 O2: low
207238 O2: high
207239 O2 -fdisable-tree-forwprop4: low
207238 O2 -fdisable-tree-forwprop4: low


  parent reply	other threads:[~2014-02-17  9:56 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 [this message]
2014-02-17 10:07 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2014-02-19 11:19 ` joey.ye at arm dot com
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-a4eegUrGhm@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).