From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 17F56385C426; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 20:10:38 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 17F56385C426 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1585599038; bh=OkVkcsCgj/BfSKwzBSgwCvciWXsfEhNLJ0lPHaPuYs8=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=K3YV/fwZdM0WXEJdMjDoNgRQdaAxI04IZrvNGqc+n35Y7pcc6xYtg1Vrt/E+EWchW wpAsCYyELiQMuRFItkXf8Noz2xyciln1GEOqzaVKmtVJN/cvZ8hpR5gP9ZEoq+9rn2 XepnfSZSkmJ2Tf1Mpd5iCDdhCrmF50cys85tu8X4= From: "jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug middle-end/90283] 519.lbm_r is 7%-10% slower with -Ofast -march=native and both LTO and PGO than with GCC 8 Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 20:10:37 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end X-Bugzilla-Version: 9.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW 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 20:10:38 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D90283 --- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor --- 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 :-/=