From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id E407F3858412; Mon,  7 Aug 2023 09:44:44 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org E407F3858412
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1691401484;
	bh=A7cwMyj1hOOdkxLy/MvR1vXasuoK9Hr+NZKxeWZEvE8=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=NJxoeyankFdEu3iQLZHoMizY1uSCjJ4kQZX2wuGNPsi7QGGPMWw8OFgs6QS0Sz04D
	 gFolWW3m2aywaIZDYY8l5R9jMvq+NBwedf/HNA5g/VbXka0CDUpuK1A9Exja0RN22h
	 216cq9QLlEz7yZAyxz82c58lOknox4TFj6rSRIqo=
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/94427] 456.hmmer is 8-17% slower when
 compiled at -Ofast than with GCC 9
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2023 09:44:44 +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: rguenth 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-94427-4-SCFtoK0cE5@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-94427-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-94427-4@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
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D94427

--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #4)
> It is the same loop - it was float only in my mind (since the function
> return float value :)
>=20
> With loop splitting we no longer have the last iteration check, but we st=
ill
> have the underflow checks that are indeed likely predictable well and in
> unvectorized version may make sense to be not if converted.
>=20
> So I guess in unvectorized loop the 100% predictable conditonal should be
> still a win but vectorization should likely outweight that?

I think so.=