https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
--- Comment #31 from Michael Meissner ---
For the Spec 2017 521.wrf_r benchmark on little endian PowerPC power9 systems,
there was no difference in runtime between a normal run using -Ofast
-mcpu=power9 and one with -Ofast -mcpu=power9 -fno-inlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
--- Comment #30 from Bill Seurer ---
I tried
-fno-inline-arg-packing
and with that the time to build all of spec2017 is 28m43 versus 63m to 65m
without.
For my purposes this is fine BUT will using this option have some sort of
performance effe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
--- Comment #29 from Bill Seurer ---
The suggestion above was to use -finline-arg-packing but I will try
-fno-inline-arg-packing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
--- Comment #28 from Richard Biener ---
Note a possibility would be to emit the packing/unpacking functions as
inline functions so whether inlining happens would be decided by the
middle-end inlining heuristics. That has the advantage of inlinin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
--- Comment #27 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 21 Apr 2020, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
>
> --- Comment #26 from Thomas Koenig ---
> (In reply to Bill Seurer from comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
--- Comment #26 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Bill Seurer from comment #25)
> This is affecting us on powerpc64 as well. It takes twice as long to build
> the spec2017 test cases with most of the difference in a few of the fortran
> compil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
Bill Seurer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at linux dot
vnet.ibm.com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
--- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Dec 20 23:51:15 2019
New Revision: 279687
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279687&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/91512
PR fortran/92738
* lang.opt (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
--- Comment #23 from Thomas Koenig ---
Could you check if this still occurs if you use -finline-arg-packing?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
--- Comment #22 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Fri Dec 20 11:51:05 2019
New Revision: 279639
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279639&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Introduce -finline-arg-packing.
2019-12-20 Thomas Koenig
PR mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
--- Comment #21 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Sunil Pandey from comment #20)
> Created attachment 46851 [details]
> Compile time regression reproducer.
>
> attached reproducer show ~28X compile time regression after the commit. See
> the c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
--- Comment #20 from Sunil Pandey ---
Created attachment 46851
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46851&action=edit
Compile time regression reproducer.
attached reproducer show ~28X compile time regression after the commit. See
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
--- Comment #18 from Sunil Pandey ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #17)
> Simply passing on a huge number of arguments is not enough to trigger this.
>
> Here's a perl script to generate test cases:
>
> while ($n=shift)
> {
> ope
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
--- Comment #17 from Thomas Koenig ---
Simply passing on a huge number of arguments is not enough to trigger this.
Here's a perl script to generate test cases:
while ($n=shift)
{
open FOO, ">foo-$n.f90";
print FOO <
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
--- Comment #16 from Sunil Pandey ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #15)
> On Thu, 22 Aug 2019, skpgkp2 at gmail dot com wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
> >
> > --- Comment #14 from Sunil Pandey --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 22 Aug 2019, skpgkp2 at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
>
> --- Comment #14 from Sunil Pandey ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
--- Comment #14 from Sunil Pandey ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> (In reply to Sunil Pandey from comment #4)
> > Actually it is spec cpu 2017 521.wrf benchmark getting this problem while
> > compiling. Compilation taking foreve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
Btw, for me module_configure.fppized.f90 is much more problematic, compiling
longest and using most memory. IIRC that one has long series of initialization
expressions. And
load CSE after reload
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #11)
> > One or two dimensional?
>
> Two or three dimensional. I didn't review all callees and
> arguments but there seems to be a 1:1 match, so both
> callers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 22 Aug 2019, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
>
> --- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig ---
>
> > Yes, but in the WRF file I see no a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig ---
> Yes, but in the WRF file I see no assumed-shape arrays but all
> appear to be of dimension(low:high,...) style.
One or two dimensional?
Code like
subroutine foo(a)
real, intent(in), dimension(*) ::
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 22 Aug 2019, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
>
> --- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig ---
> This should be exposed by
>
> module y
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig ---
This should be exposed by
module y
contains
subroutine bar(a,n)
real, dimension(n), intent(inout) :: a
a = a + 1.0
end subroutine bar
end module y
module x
use y
contains
subroutine foo(a)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Sunil Pandey from comment #4)
> Actually it is spec cpu 2017 521.wrf benchmark getting this problem while
> compiling. Compilation taking forever, you can see while compiling file
> module_first
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Sounds similar to PR91509. The rev. in question can end up exposing a lot more
loops which I think is not necessarily bad but may uncover issues in the
compiler. For PR91509 it is the prefetching pass goin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91512
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
28 matches
Mail list logo
