* [Bug tree-optimization/64058] Performance degradation after r216304
2014-11-24 17:01 [Bug tree-optimization/64058] New: Performance degradation after r216304 izamyatin at gmail dot com
@ 2014-11-24 17:02 ` izamyatin at gmail dot com
2014-11-24 17:03 ` izamyatin at gmail dot com
` (6 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: izamyatin at gmail dot com @ 2014-11-24 17:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64058
--- Comment #1 from Igor Zamyatin <izamyatin at gmail dot com> ---
Created attachment 34102
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34102&action=edit
"good" dump
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/64058] Performance degradation after r216304
2014-11-24 17:01 [Bug tree-optimization/64058] New: Performance degradation after r216304 izamyatin at gmail dot com
2014-11-24 17:02 ` [Bug tree-optimization/64058] " izamyatin at gmail dot com
@ 2014-11-24 17:03 ` izamyatin at gmail dot com
2014-11-25 8:39 ` [Bug tree-optimization/64058] [5 Regression] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: izamyatin at gmail dot com @ 2014-11-24 17:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64058
--- Comment #2 from Igor Zamyatin <izamyatin at gmail dot com> ---
Created attachment 34103
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34103&action=edit
"bad" dump
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/64058] [5 Regression] Performance degradation after r216304
2014-11-24 17:01 [Bug tree-optimization/64058] New: Performance degradation after r216304 izamyatin at gmail dot com
2014-11-24 17:02 ` [Bug tree-optimization/64058] " izamyatin at gmail dot com
2014-11-24 17:03 ` izamyatin at gmail dot com
@ 2014-11-25 8:39 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-11-26 14:44 ` izamyatin at gmail dot com
` (4 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-11-25 8:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64058
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |missed-optimization
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
This sounds like a TER effect - the -fdump-rtl-expand-details dump should show
differences in SSA coalescing / TER replacements.
You are talking about
-(note 291 287 289 65 [bb 65] NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK)
-(jump_insn 289 291 290 65 (set (pc)
+(note 291 287 16 65 [bb 65] NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK)
+(insn 16 291 289 65 (set (reg:SI 85 [ l1_lsm.7 ])
+ (reg:SI 113 [ u1_lsm.6 ])) /nfs/ims/home/izamyati/test_216304.c:72 -1
+ (nil))
+(jump_insn 289 16 290 65 (set (pc)
(label_ref 288)) /nfs/ims/home/izamyati/test_216304.c:72 -1
(nil)
-> 288)
which doesn't appear in the good dump - thus it looks like u1_lsm.6 and
l1_lsm.7 were coalesced there.
Btw, on trunk the testcase is now optimized to trap unconditionally with -flto
or -fwhole-program because the global vars are not initialized.
Can you check on the coalescing theory?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/64058] [5 Regression] Performance degradation after r216304
2014-11-24 17:01 [Bug tree-optimization/64058] New: Performance degradation after r216304 izamyatin at gmail dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2014-11-25 8:39 ` [Bug tree-optimization/64058] [5 Regression] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-11-26 14:44 ` izamyatin at gmail dot com
2014-12-02 11:39 ` izamyatin at gmail dot com
` (3 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: izamyatin at gmail dot com @ 2014-11-26 14:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64058
--- Comment #4 from Igor Zamyatin <izamyatin at gmail dot com> ---
Partition maps differ
216303:
Partition 0 (_1 - 1 101 200 252 267 316 348 )
....
Partition 16 (l1_lsm.7_159 - 106 159 238 253 )
and for 216304:
Partition 3 (l1_lsm.7_58 - 58 106 238 253 315 316 )
....
Partition 31 (u1_lsm.6_252 - 101 252 267 314 348 )
And also for 216304 there is
Coalesce list: (267)u1_lsm.6_252 & (315)l1_lsm.7_58 [map: 70, 4] : Fail due to
conflict
although for 216303 there is
Coalesce list: (1)_1 & (253)l1_lsm.7_159 [map: 0, 32] : Fail due to conflict
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/64058] [5 Regression] Performance degradation after r216304
2014-11-24 17:01 [Bug tree-optimization/64058] New: Performance degradation after r216304 izamyatin at gmail dot com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2014-11-26 14:44 ` izamyatin at gmail dot com
@ 2014-12-02 11:39 ` izamyatin at gmail dot com
2015-03-03 16:02 ` law at redhat dot com
` (2 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: izamyatin at gmail dot com @ 2014-12-02 11:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64058
--- Comment #5 from Igor Zamyatin <izamyatin at gmail dot com> ---
But at the same time difference in "good" and "bad" .optimized dumps seems to
me insignificant (only some postfix numbers of variables).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/64058] [5 Regression] Performance degradation after r216304
2014-11-24 17:01 [Bug tree-optimization/64058] New: Performance degradation after r216304 izamyatin at gmail dot com
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2014-12-02 11:39 ` izamyatin at gmail dot com
@ 2015-03-03 16:02 ` law at redhat dot com
2015-04-22 12:00 ` [Bug tree-optimization/64058] [5/6 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-07-16 9:17 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: law at redhat dot com @ 2015-03-03 16:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64058
Jeffrey A. Law <law at redhat dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P3 |P2
CC| |law at redhat dot com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/64058] [5/6 Regression] Performance degradation after r216304
2014-11-24 17:01 [Bug tree-optimization/64058] New: Performance degradation after r216304 izamyatin at gmail dot com
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2015-03-03 16:02 ` law at redhat dot com
@ 2015-04-22 12:00 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-07-16 9:17 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-04-22 12:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64058
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|5.0 |5.2
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 5.1 has been released.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/64058] [5/6 Regression] Performance degradation after r216304
2014-11-24 17:01 [Bug tree-optimization/64058] New: Performance degradation after r216304 izamyatin at gmail dot com
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2015-04-22 12:00 ` [Bug tree-optimization/64058] [5/6 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-07-16 9:17 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-07-16 9:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64058
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|5.2 |5.3
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 5.2 is being released, adjusting target milestone to 5.3.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread