public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "roger at nextmovesoftware dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/97756] [11/12/13 Regression] Inefficient handling of 128-bit arguments
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 12:54:58 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-97756-4-zR5DVvQuIL@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-97756-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97756
Roger Sayle <roger at nextmovesoftware dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Known to work| |14.0
Summary|[11/12/13/14/15 Regression] |[11/12/13 Regression]
|Inefficient handling of |Inefficient handling of
|128-bit arguments |128-bit arguments
--- Comment #17 from Roger Sayle <roger at nextmovesoftware dot com> ---
I believe this issue is now fixed on mainline (i.e. for both GCC 14 and GCC
15).
Firstly, many thanks to Jakub for correcting the error in my patch. We now
generate optimal code sequences for the code in comments #3 and #5, and use
generate fewer instructions than described in the original description.
The final remaining issue is that with -O3 GCC still uses more instructions
than clang and icc (see Thomas' comments in comments #12 and #13). The good
news is that this is intentional, compiling with -Os (to optimize for size)
generates the same number of instructions as clang and icc [in fact, using icc
-Os generates larger code!?]. So when optimizing for performance, GCC is
taking the opportunity to use more (cheap) instructions to execute faster (or
that's the theory).
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-26 12:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-11-08 19:53 [Bug rtl-optimization/97756] New: " tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-11-09 6:29 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/97756] " tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-12-25 11:35 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-03-10 12:55 ` ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-28 4:58 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-28 7:20 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/97756] [9/10/11/12 Regression] " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-06-01 8:18 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-08-30 5:18 ` crazylht at gmail dot com
2022-05-27 9:43 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/97756] [10/11/12/13 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-06-28 10:42 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-07-07 10:38 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/97756] [11/12/13/14 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-07-13 21:09 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-07-16 11:48 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-11-07 18:38 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-11-13 9:06 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-11-13 17:52 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-11-14 12:20 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-04-26 12:54 ` roger at nextmovesoftware dot com [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=bug-97756-4-zR5DVvQuIL@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
--to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).