https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65660
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65660
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.2 |5.3
--- Comment #24 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65660
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.0 |5.2
--- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65660
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65660
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.0
Summary|[5/6 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65660
--- Comment #20 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #17)
> Actually it seems that the tester was used to test the change and it was
> applied at
> Nov 7, 2012 03:02 UTC
> (Values: Base: 164.gzip: 1269, 175.vpr: 1245,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65660
--- Comment #19 from Jan Hubicka ---
Yep, but if you can look up the revision range, I would like to know what
happened.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65660
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #17)
> Actually it seems that the tester was used to test the change and it was
> applied at
Note that frescobaldi (or vangelis) both don't use -march=native and thus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65660
--- Comment #17 from Jan Hubicka ---
Actually it seems that the tester was used to test the change and it was
applied at
Nov 7, 2012 03:02 UTC
(Values: Base: 164.gzip: 1269, 175.vpr: 1245, 176.gcc: 1627, 181.mcf: 868,
186.crafty: 2219, 197.pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65660
--- Comment #16 from Jan Hubicka ---
Note that the eon performance is low even on frescobaldi tester (that is
pre-bulldozer). The regression is in range:
Oct 18, 2012 23:47 UTC
(Values: Base: 164.gzip: 1202, 175.vpr: 1247, 176.gcc: 1677, 181.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65660
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Apr 7 13:40:24 2015
New Revision: 221895
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221895&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-04-07 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2015-04-0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65660
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65660
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65660
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
Btw, PR56812 and thus g++.dg/vect/slp-pr56812.cc looks suspiciously similar.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65660
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka ---
Thanks,
32-bit eon runs improved today, though I am not 100% sure it is ude to
vectorization or the unit growth change
http://gcc.opensuse.org/SPEC/CINT/sb-frescobaldi.suse.de-head-64-32o-32bit/252_eon_recent_
Thanks,
32-bit eon runs improved today, though I am not 100% sure it is ude to
vectorization or the unit growth change
http://gcc.opensuse.org/SPEC/CINT/sb-frescobaldi.suse.de-head-64-32o-32bit/252_eon_recent_big.png
Overall we had better scores on 32bit eon in the past however
http://gcc.opensuse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65660
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On April 3, 2015 8:35:00 PM GMT+02:00, rguenther at suse dot de
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65660
>
>--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de
>---
>On April 3, 2015
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65660
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Sat Apr 4 10:47:08 2015
New Revision: 221866
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221866&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-04-04 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/64909
PR tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65660
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On April 3, 2015 6:22:48 PM GMT+02:00, "hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65660
>
>--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
>Performance seems to be back
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65660
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka ---
32bit runs still shows regression between
Feb 10, 2015 17:03 UTC
(Values: Base: 164.gzip: 1478, 176.gcc: 3065, 181.mcf: 5127, 186.crafty:
2013, 197.parser: 2057, 252.eon: 2604, 255.vortex: 3062, 256.bzip2:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65660
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
Performance seems to be back at Apr 2
Apr 2, 2015 16:20 UTC
(Values: Base: 164.gzip: 1562, 175.vpr: 2384, 176.gcc: 2873, 181.mcf: 3743,
186.crafty: 2922, 197.parser: 2002, 252.eon: 4144, 255.vortex: 3345, 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65660
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-04/msg00053.html
C testcase:
void Set (float d, float *data)
{
for (int i = 0; i < 8; i++)
data[i] = d;
}
note that I didn't really verify it is that specific
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65660
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
With a true fix I get
t.c:3:20: note: Cost model analysis:
Vector inside of loop cost: 4
Vector prologue cost: 13
Vector epilogue cost: 11
Scalar iteration cost: 4
Scalar outside cost: 0
Vector
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65660
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Looks like we now vectorize using loop vect instead of basic-block
vectorization. The overhead might be noticable. For example
./ggSpectrum.h:48:4: note: loop vectorized
-./ggSpectrum.h:49:18: note: basi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65660
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
http://gcc.opensuse.org/SPEC/CINT/sb-czerny-head-64/252_eon_recent.png
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65660
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65660
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mil
27 matches
Mail list logo
