Hi, on 2023/9/25 09:57, HAO CHEN GUI wrote: > Hi Kewen, > > 在 2023/9/18 15:34, Kewen.Lin 写道: >> hanks for checking! So for P7, this patch looks neutral, but for P8 and >> later, it may cause some few differences in code gen. I'm curious that how >> many total object files and different object files were checked and found >> on P8? > P8 with -O2, following object files are different. > 507.cactuBSSN_r datestamp.o > 511.povray_r colutils.o > 521.wrf_r module_cu_kfeta.fppized.o > 526.blender_r particle_edit.o > 526.blender_r glutil.o > 526.blender_r displist.o > 526.blender_r CCGSubSurf.o > > P8 with -O3, following object files are different. > 502.gcc_r ifcvt.o > 502.gcc_r rtlanal.o > 548.exchange2_r exchange2.fppized.o > 507.cactuBSSN_r datestamp.o > 511.povray_r colutils.o > 521.wrf_r module_bc.fppized.o > 521.wrf_r module_cu_kfeta.fppized.o > 526.blender_r particle_edit.o > 526.blender_r displist.o > 526.blender_r CCGSubSurf.o > 526.blender_r sketch.o >
OK, it's concluded that the percentage of the total number of affected object files is quite small ... > > > >> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-February/612821.html >> I also wonder if it's easy to reduce some of them further as small test >> cases. >> >> Since xxlor is better than fmr at least on Power10, could you also evaluate >> the affected bmks on P10 (even P8/P9) to ensure no performance degradation? > There is no performance recession on P10/P9/P8. The detail data is listed on > internal issue. ... and no runtime performance impact as evaluated, so this patch looks good to me and thanks for further testing. Please wait for a week or so to see if Segher and David have comments. Thanks! BR, Kewen > > Thanks > Gui Haochen
