* [Bug libstdc++/66004] [6 Regression]: performance of 26_numerics/random/negative_binomial_distribution/operators/values.cc
[not found] <bug-66004-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2015-05-04 13:03 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-05-04 17:20 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-05-04 13:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66004
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Version|unknown |6.0
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug libstdc++/66004] [6 Regression]: performance of 26_numerics/random/negative_binomial_distribution/operators/values.cc
[not found] <bug-66004-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2015-05-04 13:03 ` [Bug libstdc++/66004] [6 Regression]: performance of 26_numerics/random/negative_binomial_distribution/operators/values.cc rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-05-04 17:20 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-05-06 4:47 ` [Bug ipa/66004] " hp at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: hp at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-05-04 17:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66004
--- Comment #1 from Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
At r222180: 40068917595
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug ipa/66004] [6 Regression]: performance of 26_numerics/random/negative_binomial_distribution/operators/values.cc
[not found] <bug-66004-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2015-05-04 13:03 ` [Bug libstdc++/66004] [6 Regression]: performance of 26_numerics/random/negative_binomial_distribution/operators/values.cc rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-05-04 17:20 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-05-06 4:47 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-05-16 1:04 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: hp at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-05-06 4:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66004
Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
Component|libstdc++ |ipa
--- Comment #2 from Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Bisecting shows that revision r221859 is the culprit, adding Honza to CC.
I hope to add analysis of the compiled code showing (an example of) the
regressed code, but it would be really nice if Someone could
performance-regression test r221859 (compared to r221858) on another target.
Weird that a performance-regression of 16% is supposed to be *fixed* by that
commit (see PR65076). While it refers to *compile-time* regression, that is
just another name for a *run-time* performance-regression of the bootstrapped
compiler, apparently typical for at least the execution-path when compiling
tramp3d-v4.cpp supposedly for x86_64-linux and
26_numerics/random/negative_binomial_distribution/operators/values.cc for
cris-elf.
Note that the regression is not fixed for cris-elf at r222305 (a later
additional commit referencing PR65076).
Revision-numbers and cycle numbers while bisecting follows. Note the very
stable numbers:
r221618 34633750695
r221758 34633750695
r221828 34633750695
r221845 34633750695
r221854 34633750695
r221858 34633750695
r221859 40068917595
r221860 40068917595
r221863 40068917595
r221899 40068917595
r222180 40068917595
r222742 40111446541
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug ipa/66004] [6 Regression]: performance of 26_numerics/random/negative_binomial_distribution/operators/values.cc
[not found] <bug-66004-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2015-05-06 4:47 ` [Bug ipa/66004] " hp at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-05-16 1:04 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-05-14 9:47 ` [Bug ipa/66004] [9/10/11/12 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: hp at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-05-16 1:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66004
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Something supposedly very good happened recently, because:
r223225 18369501023
I'll just have to find out what caused that 50% cut! The test-case is
unchanged.
If the cause is related to inlining heuristics, I'll close this PR for sure.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug ipa/66004] [9/10/11/12 Regression]: performance of 26_numerics/random/negative_binomial_distribution/operators/values.cc
[not found] <bug-66004-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2015-05-16 1:04 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-05-14 9:47 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-06-01 8:06 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-05-14 9:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66004
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|8.5 |9.4
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 8 branch is being closed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug ipa/66004] [9/10/11/12 Regression]: performance of 26_numerics/random/negative_binomial_distribution/operators/values.cc
[not found] <bug-66004-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2021-05-14 9:47 ` [Bug ipa/66004] [9/10/11/12 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-06-01 8:06 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-27 9:35 ` [Bug ipa/66004] [10/11/12/13 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-06-01 8:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66004
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5
--- Comment #19 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug ipa/66004] [10/11/12/13 Regression]: performance of 26_numerics/random/negative_binomial_distribution/operators/values.cc
[not found] <bug-66004-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2021-06-01 8:06 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-05-27 9:35 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-06-28 10:31 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-07-07 10:30 ` [Bug ipa/66004] [11/12/13/14 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-05-27 9:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66004
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|9.5 |10.4
--- Comment #20 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 9 branch is being closed
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug ipa/66004] [10/11/12/13 Regression]: performance of 26_numerics/random/negative_binomial_distribution/operators/values.cc
[not found] <bug-66004-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2022-05-27 9:35 ` [Bug ipa/66004] [10/11/12/13 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-06-28 10:31 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-07-07 10:30 ` [Bug ipa/66004] [11/12/13/14 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-06-28 10:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66004
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|10.4 |10.5
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [Bug ipa/66004] [11/12/13/14 Regression]: performance of 26_numerics/random/negative_binomial_distribution/operators/values.cc
[not found] <bug-66004-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2022-06-28 10:31 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-07-07 10:30 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-07-07 10:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66004
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|10.5 |11.5
--- Comment #22 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 10 branch is being closed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread