From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 138423857C40; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 19:43:43 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 138423857C40 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1596138223; bh=wxO1WgFnAsq9gmPw0ADFrqAFgGz3xI1ATPep1mRufis=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=tN4ZLWTzIsAqfM93+xb0lbsO4czRwY6w+hvoZIY4AFlmusvvsYZbxUUs6FM93frVz gZqEt5ePCSxYNQwYSdBaf4/20CvDkOSMqVzHNv+imwm3SGsd4gZMfreIN7lruz5IuI e3fkUlefAq+idL6MoAMLqYEzd2iZeg06fBGXNpn8= From: "jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/84481] [8/9/10/11 Regression] 429.mcf with -O2 regresses by ~6% and ~4%, depending on tuning, on Zen compared to GCC 7.2 Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 19:43:43 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Version: 8.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 8.5 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 19:43:43 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D84481 --- Comment #12 from Martin Jambor --- I can once again confirm the slowdown on a zen1-based machine (commit 6e1e0decc9e vs gcc 7.5) but it is not present on a zen2-based one. I wonder whether the bug should me marked as WONTFIX.=