From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <amonakov@ispras.ru>
Received: from mail.ispras.ru (mail.ispras.ru [83.149.199.84])
 by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A48A53858D3C
 for <gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>; Thu,  5 May 2022 14:56:32 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org A48A53858D3C
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org;
 dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=ispras.ru
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ispras.ru
Received: from [10.10.3.121] (unknown [10.10.3.121])
 by mail.ispras.ru (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3EB5540D4004;
 Thu,  5 May 2022 14:56:26 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 17:56:26 +0300 (MSK)
From: Alexander Monakov <amonakov@ispras.ru>
To: Marc Glisse via Gcc-help <gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>
cc: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?St=E9phane_Glondu?= <stephane.glondu@inria.fr>, 
 Marc Glisse <marc.glisse@inria.fr>, sibid@uvic.ca, 
 Paul Zimmermann <Paul.Zimmermann@inria.fr>
Subject: Re: slowdown with -std=gnu18 with respect to -std=c99
In-Reply-To: <4d36d96-2de9-f8ac-2d52-ea32b1cc6d9@grove.saclay.inria.fr>
Message-ID: <74dc894-7774-e5bb-81-c5955c94ee4@ispras.ru>
References: <mw1qxbc954.fsf@tomate.loria.fr>
 <9f7e3aa9-8d46-1fbb-75b-1c8ad9a667f@ispras.ru>
 <c8517377-e695-06fe-0be4-b7e409d471b9@inria.fr>
 <c1a686bd-d2fa-a934-f931-6bf96f11e3d9@inria.fr>
 <4d36d96-2de9-f8ac-2d52-ea32b1cc6d9@grove.saclay.inria.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS,
 KAM_NUMSUBJECT, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP,
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on
 server2.sourceware.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29
X-BeenThere: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-help mailing list <gcc-help.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-help>,
 <mailto:gcc-help-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-help/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-help-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-help>,
 <mailto:gcc-help-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 May 2022 14:56:33 -0000

On Thu, 5 May 2022, Marc Glisse via Gcc-help wrote:

> On Thu, 5 May 2022, Stéphane Glondu via Gcc-help wrote:
> 
> > As additional data points, the performance with several versions of gcc
> > (as packaged in Debian testing/unstable):
> >
> >             | gcc-9 | gcc-10 | gcc-11 | gcc-12 |
> > ------------|-------|--------|--------|--------|
> >  -std=c99   | 24    | 23.5   | 23     | 23     |
> >  -std=gnu18 | 43    | 16.8   | 38     | 38     |
> >
> > One can see that the performance stays relatively constant with
> > -std=c99, but varies significantly with -std=gnu18.
> 
> Could you compare with c18 or gnu99, to determine if the issue is with c vs
> gnu (most likely since fma seems important) or 99 vs 18?

Good point. Also could you please add latency metrics, I see that your testing
framework already exposes the '--latency' flag.

I could reproduce a similar though less dramatic slowdown and am investigating.

Alexander