On Tue, 16 Jul 2024, Richard Biener wrote: > On Tue, 16 Jul 2024, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 10:55:30AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > > > On Tue, 16 Jul 2024, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 10:43:27AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > > I've pushed it to trunk now and am running local CPU 2017 to check for > > > > > obvious fallout on Zen4 so we can make 14.2 RC early next week. > > > > > There's > > > > > still the question of GCC 11.5 which got the backport of zen4 support > > > > > with this "wrong" costs but RC1 was already last week and we're set > > > > > to release on Friday. > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to hear your opinion on that (13.3 and 12.4 also got the > > > > > bogus > > > > > value so eventually 11.5 getting the bogus value isn't too bad). > > > > > > > > > > Btw, I just see that znver5 tables have the same issue, I'll push the > > > > > obvious change there as well. > > > > > > > > I'd just change 11.5 and do a RC2. > > > > > > I'm undecided on how important it is or whether it would need a RC, I > > > don't expect anybody to use -march=znver4 with a GCC 11 code-base since > > > it wasn't available there with 11.4. > > > > -march=native is something people will actually use even with GCC 11 code > > base and I've just tested that on znver4 box > > ~/xgcc -B ~/ -S -march=native -xc /dev/null -o /dev/null -v 2>&1 | sed -n > > 's/^.* \(-march=[0-9a-z]*\) .*$/\1/p' > > -march=znver4 > > ~/xgcc --version > > xgcc (GCC) 11.4.1 20240620 > > Copyright (C) 2021 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > > This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO > > warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. > > > > So, I think we really should fix this for 11.5. > > OK, note we have the broken state in 12.4 and 13.3 so that got some > testing there. I actually expect less problems with the fixed values > as the bogus ones will cause alignment peeling that's not seen before > with -march=native, possibly triggering latent issues like PR115841 > (not that in particular since GCC 11 isn't affected). > > I'll push the cost adjustment to 11 later but will wait with the other > branches to watch SPEC results as Honza requested.
Pushed to the GCC 11 branch now, after bootstrapping and testing on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Do you think this needs a new RC? Richard.
