From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 3315A385B834; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 20:31:52 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 3315A385B834 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1585600312; bh=dspG3hv2eT0+dmtKO9eX2v+ryP2ROLHuZZjBwrG5ySg=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=Pm5cLZy36w9SOLo3m/qH9N8MZKG901yALp1tJL/j8v8teU8t0B+8x2k50l7Qg7LF8 b61K0XeHWSHsVHHtDQ4DbVZSnmnBeigWN7iFClVGdvI3yCpDHoO9eZ+8S13pD0uilD tLiyISBdrK2Cl9+9iZWWjPLByMjJnBtlxy1UUUEw= From: "jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug ipa/90151] 554.roms_r regression on x86_64 at -O2 and generic march/mtune Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 20:31:52 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: ipa X-Bugzilla-Version: 9.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: jamborm 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 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: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 20:31:52 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D90151 --- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor --- This year's numbers: - on AMD Zen1, we are still 7.2% worse than GCC 7 - on AMD Zen2, the reegression is 4.6% - in Intel Cascade Lake server CPU, it is 5.4% This is all -O2, so perhaps not that important for a Fortran benchmark.=