From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20857 invoked by alias); 31 Jan 2013 08:54:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 20847 invoked by uid 22791); 31 Jan 2013 08:54:55 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from cantor2.suse.de (HELO mx2.suse.de) (195.135.220.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 08:54:50 +0000 Received: from relay1.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40A15A3A49; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 09:54:49 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 09:06:00 -0000 From: Richard Biener To: Pat Haugen Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Jakub Jelinek , hjl.tools@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] Add -fno-aggressive-loop-optimizations In-Reply-To: <5109579A.7070004@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Message-ID: References: <5109579A.7070004@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LNX 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2013-01/txt/msg01473.txt.bz2 On Wed, 30 Jan 2013, Pat Haugen wrote: > On 01/29/2013 04:53 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > > I'm curious about the affect of -fno-aggressive-loop-optimizations > > on SPEC CPU 2006 numbers (not curious enough to try for myself > > though). Both on extra PASSes for official latest sources > > (I have no access to those) and on performance. > The patch/option result in both 464.h264ref and 416.gamess passing (as opposed > to infinite loop). As for performance, I didn't see any difference outside of > noise range for both 32-bit and 64-bit runs on PowerPC. Ok, I'll go ahead and apply the patch then. Richard.