From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-92563-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 16262 invoked by alias); 15 Mar 2004 02:22:18 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 16226 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2004 02:22:05 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO scanner2.ics.uci.edu) (128.195.1.36)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 Mar 2004 02:22:05 -0000
Received: from vino.ics.uci.edu (vino.ics.uci.edu [128.195.11.198])
	by scanner2.ics.uci.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i2F2LQ4J018909;
	Sun, 14 Mar 2004 18:21:26 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <200403150221.i2F2LQ4J018909@scanner2.ics.uci.edu>
To: Roger Sayle <roger@eyesopen.com>
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: GCC viciously beaten by ICC in trig test!
References: <4054ED19.8020009@coyotegulch.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.44.0403141713460.12909-100000@www.eyesopen.com>
From: Dan Nicolaescu <dann@godzilla.ics.uci.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 02:22:00 -0000
X-ICS-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-ICS-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam (whitelisted),
	SpamAssassin (score=-96.69, required 5, MSGID_FROM_MTA_SHORT,
	USER_IN_WHITELIST)
X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00644.txt.bz2

Roger Sayle <roger@eyesopen.com> writes:

  > without it, the same "-O2 -ffast-math -fomit-frame-pointer" options'
  > output is identical to the output from Intel v7.0 (and presumably later).
>
  > foo:    fldl    4(%esp)
  >         fsin
  >         fmul    %st(0), %st
  >         ret

Intel 8.0 (that was used in the original test) generates something
very different:

# parameter 1: 8 + %ebx
..B1.1:                         # Preds ..B1.0
        pushl     %ebx                                          #5.1
        movl      %esp, %ebx                                    #5.1
        andl      $-8, %esp                                     #5.1
        subl      $8, %esp                                      #5.1
        movsd     8(%ebx), %xmm0                                #7.15
        call      __libm_sse2_sincos                            #7.15
                                # LOE ebp esi edi xmm0 xmm1
..B1.4:                         # Preds ..B1.1
        mulsd     %xmm1, %xmm1                                  #10.25
        mulsd     %xmm0, %xmm0                                  #10.15
        addsd     %xmm1, %xmm0                                  #10.25
        movsd     %xmm0, (%esp)                                 #10.25
        fldl      (%esp)                                        #10.25
        movl      %ebx, %esp                                    #10.25
        popl      %ebx                                          #10.25
        ret                                                     #10.25

 __libm_sse2_sincos seems to be an iterative SSE function. 

I guess the mystery is solved now.