public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug middle-end/90283] 519.lbm_r is 7%-10% slower with -Ofast -march=native and both LTO and PGO than with GCC 8
[not found] <bug-90283-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2020-03-30 20:10 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-03-30 20:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90283
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The numbers from this year are:
- on Intel Cascade Lake server CPU the regression disappeared, if
there ever was one, I don't have Skylake numbers this year.
- On AMD Zen1 CPU, the measured regression is 20% compared to GCC 8
(15% compared to GCC 9) but that most likely means we hit the known
code-placement problem again.
- On AMD Zen2 CPU, there is actually 6.8% regression compared to GCC
8 (and only negligible one compared to GCC 9). It may or may not be
the same problem we were looking at last year. In any event,
probably not very pressing, given the behavior of the benchmark :-/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread
only message in thread, other threads:[~2020-03-30 20:10 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <bug-90283-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2020-03-30 20:10 ` [Bug middle-end/90283] 519.lbm_r is 7%-10% slower with -Ofast -march=native and both LTO and PGO than with GCC 8 jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).