From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 697D3395B41B; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 13:48:42 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 697D3395B41B DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1668606522; bh=0O6asDuRkN5mITr5qf5Sdvcq1aKmq924LrGRkevD/XI=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=gfdTxAwgvSg2zVMIKvnvdQhmPhib3XwdAVDK+K8MpHOKqFbt4B574c4IweSM8x3NS pwU4Wrejjr8djkxncB4liLP/U3fUAejqTWKfCSoSB9QzcYb643n14RjMDqcMLEXovq eVmIoEyuuTyHAJf+erzO/7OI/ylpV7o5+dScaSqs= From: "amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/87832] AMD pipeline models are very costly size-wise Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 13:48:42 +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: 9.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- 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 List-Id: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D87832 --- Comment #6 from Alexander Monakov --- With these patches on trunk, current situation is: nm -CS -t d --defined-only gcc/insn-automata.o | sed 's/^[0-9]* 0*//' | sor= t -n | tail -40 2496 r slm_base 2527 r bdver3_load_min_issue_delay 2746 r glm_base 3892 r bdver1_fp_base 4444 r bdver1_ieu_min_issue_delay 4492 r geode_base 4608 r bdver3_ieu_transitions 6402 r bdver1_load_transitions 6720 r znver1_fp_min_issue_delay 7862 r athlon_fp_check 7862 r athlon_fp_transitions 9122 r lujiazui_core_base 9997 t internal_insn_latency(int, int, rtx_insn*, rtx_insn*) 10108 r bdver3_load_transitions 10498 r geode_check 10498 r geode_transitions 11632 r print_reservation(_IO_FILE*, rtx_insn*)::reservation_names 12575 r athlon_fp_min_issue_delay 12742 r btver2_fp_check 12742 r btver2_fp_transitions 13896 r slm_check 13896 r slm_transitions 17149 t internal_min_issue_delay(int, DFA_chip*) 17349 t internal_state_transition(int, DFA_chip*) 17776 r bdver1_ieu_transitions 20068 r bdver1_fp_check 20068 r bdver1_fp_transitions 26208 r slm_min_issue_delay 27244 r bdver1_fp_min_issue_delay 28518 r glm_check 28518 r glm_transitions 33690 r geode_min_issue_delay 46980 r bdver3_fp_min_issue_delay 49428 r glm_min_issue_delay 53730 r btver2_fp_min_issue_delay 53760 r znver1_fp_transitions 93960 r bdver3_fp_transitions 106102 r lujiazui_core_check 106102 r lujiazui_core_transitions 196123 r lujiazui_core_min_issue_delay What shall we do with similar blowups in lujiazui and b[dt]ver[123] models?=