On Thu, 2024-06-20 at 14:34 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote: > > I tried compiling at least one target per CPU directory and comparing > the assembly output for parts of the GCC testsuite. This is just a way > of getting a flavour of how the pass performs; it obviously isn't a > meaningful benchmark. All targets seemed to improve on average: > > Target Tests Good Bad %Good Delta Median > ====== ===== ==== === ===== ===== ====== > aarch64-linux-gnu 2215 1975 240 89.16% -4159 -1 > aarch64_be-linux-gnu 1569 1483 86 94.52% -10117 -1 > alpha-linux-gnu 1454 1370 84 94.22% -9502 -1 > amdgcn-amdhsa 5122 4671 451 91.19% -35737 -1 > arc-elf 2166 1932 234 89.20% -37742 -1 > arm-linux-gnueabi 1953 1661 292 85.05% -12415 -1 > arm-linux-gnueabihf 1834 1549 285 84.46% -11137 -1 > avr-elf 4789 4330 459 90.42% -441276 -4 > bfin-elf 2795 2394 401 85.65% -19252 -1 > bpf-elf 3122 2928 194 93.79% -8785 -1 > c6x-elf 2227 1929 298 86.62% -17339 -1 > cris-elf 3464 3270 194 94.40% -23263 -2 > csky-elf 2915 2591 324 88.89% -22146 -1 > epiphany-elf 2399 2304 95 96.04% -28698 -2 > fr30-elf 7712 7299 413 94.64% -99830 -2 > frv-linux-gnu 3332 2877 455 86.34% -25108 -1 > ft32-elf 2775 2667 108 96.11% -25029 -1 > h8300-elf 3176 2862 314 90.11% -29305 -2 > hppa64-hp-hpux11.23 4287 4247 40 99.07% -45963 -2 > ia64-linux-gnu 2343 1946 397 83.06% -9907 -2 > iq2000-elf 9684 9637 47 99.51% -126557 -2 > lm32-elf 2681 2608 73 97.28% -59884 -3 > loongarch64-linux-gnu 1303 1218 85 93.48% -13375 -2 > m32r-elf 1626 1517 109 93.30% -9323 -2 > m68k-linux-gnu 3022 2620 402 86.70% -21531 -1 > mcore-elf 2315 2085 230 90.06% -24160 -1 > microblaze-elf 2782 2585 197 92.92% -16530 -1 > mipsel-linux-gnu 1958 1827 131 93.31% -15462 -1 > mipsisa64-linux-gnu 1655 1488 167 89.91% -16592 -2 > mmix 4914 4814 100 97.96% -63021 -1 > mn10300-elf 3639 3320 319 91.23% -34752 -2 > moxie-rtems 3497 3252 245 92.99% -87305 -3 > msp430-elf 4353 3876 477 89.04% -23780 -1 > nds32le-elf 3042 2780 262 91.39% -27320 -1 > nios2-linux-gnu 1683 1355 328 80.51% -8065 -1 > nvptx-none 2114 1781 333 84.25% -12589 -2 > or1k-elf 3045 2699 346 88.64% -14328 -2 > pdp11 4515 4146 369 91.83% -26047 -2 > pru-elf 1585 1245 340 78.55% -5225 -1 > riscv32-elf 2122 2000 122 94.25% -101162 -2 > riscv64-elf 1841 1726 115 93.75% -49997 -2 > rl78-elf 2823 2530 293 89.62% -40742 -4 > rx-elf 2614 2480 134 94.87% -18863 -1 > s390-linux-gnu 1591 1393 198 87.55% -16696 -1 > s390x-linux-gnu 2015 1879 136 93.25% -21134 -1 > sh-linux-gnu 1870 1507 363 80.59% -9491 -1 > sparc-linux-gnu 1123 1075 48 95.73% -14503 -1 > sparc-wrs-vxworks 1121 1073 48 95.72% -14578 -1 > sparc64-linux-gnu 1096 1021 75 93.16% -15003 -1 > v850-elf 1897 1728 169 91.09% -11078 -1 > vax-netbsdelf 3035 2995 40 98.68% -27642 -1 > visium-elf 1392 1106 286 79.45% -7984 -2 > xstormy16-elf 2577 2071 506 80.36% -13061 -1 > >
Since you have already briefly compared some of the code, can you share those cases which get worse and might require some potential follow up patches? Best regards, Oleg Endo
