From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by server2.sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id F37FD385E82C; Mon,  9 Mar 2020 06:29:38 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 server2.sourceware.org F37FD385E82C
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
 s=default; t=1583735379;
 bh=ZeuErJPALhqpY5KVHN8OWLRbVcGa0NbYO4aCChI3fj0=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=S828boDsEcwxvD34QGG1a+QektZ0Wu+h6eEYg+pqE8du7kpY1zFKtXrOzSePuCbdx
 O1VpykguefINwYHKQeCtXjS9bKrSlHGOSoueAFZWHcEmKpkmoGZ1WEpYDeqwEwJb6C
 JLYwoARskd4r3INrCS+rgjjbL+HMYlpun4oO+nyo=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/94092] Code size and performance degradations
 after -ftree-loop-distribute-patterns was enabled at -O[2s]+
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2020 06:29:38 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 10.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia 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: <bug-94092-4-2AqZHAkFqd@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-94092-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-94092-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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 <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2020 06:29:39 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D94092

--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> >For coremark, this is not only harmful to performance, but also code siz=
e.
>=20
>=20
> Bad, very bad benchmark ....
Coremark only handles very very small data sets by default.  I think you sh=
ould
run your real code over this and see if it improves or not.

Also -O2 does not care exactly about code size, that -Os only.

Can you provide a test where besides coremark which decreases in performance
and increase in size?=