https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107413
--- Comment #19 from Rama Malladi ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #17)
> (In reply to Rama Malladi from comment #16)
> > (In reply to Wilco from comment #15)
> > > (In reply to Rama Malladi from comment #14)
> > > > This fix also improved pe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107413
--- Comment #18 from Rama Malladi ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #17)
> (In reply to Rama Malladi from comment #16)
> > (In reply to Wilco from comment #15)
> > > (In reply to Rama Malladi from comment #14)
> > > > This fix also improved pe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107413
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107413
--- Comment #16 from Rama Malladi ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #15)
> (In reply to Rama Malladi from comment #14)
> > This fix also improved performance of 538.imagick_r by 15%. Did you have a
> > similar observation? Thank you.
>
> No,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107413
--- Comment #15 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Rama Malladi from comment #14)
> This fix also improved performance of 538.imagick_r by 15%. Did you have a
> similar observation? Thank you.
No, but I was using -mcpu=neoverse-n1 as my baseline. It's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107413
--- Comment #14 from Rama Malladi ---
This fix also improved performance of 538.imagick_r by 15%. Did you have a
similar observation? Thank you.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107413
--- Comment #13 from Rama Malladi ---
(In reply to CVS Commits from comment #12)
> The master branch has been updated by Wilco Dijkstra :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0c1b0a23f1fe7db6a2e391b7cb78cff90032
>
> commit r13-4291-g0c1b0a23f1fe7db6a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107413
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Wilco Dijkstra :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0c1b0a23f1fe7db6a2e391b7cb78cff90032
commit r13-4291-g0c1b0a23f1fe7db6a2e391b7cb78cff90032
Author: Wilco Dijkstra
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107413
--- Comment #11 from Rama Malladi ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #10)
> I'm seeing about 1.5% gain on Neoverse V1 and 0.5% loss on Neoverse N1. I'll
> post a patch that allows per-CPU settings for FMA reassociation, so you'll
> get good per
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107413
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107413
--- Comment #9 from Rama Malladi ---
(In reply to Rama Malladi from comment #8)
> (In reply to Wilco from comment #7)
> > The revert results in about 0.5% loss on Neoverse N1, so it looks like the
> > reassociation pass is still splitting FMAs i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107413
--- Comment #8 from Rama Malladi ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #7)
> The revert results in about 0.5% loss on Neoverse N1, so it looks like the
> reassociation pass is still splitting FMAs into separate MUL and ADD (which
> is bad for narr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107413
--- Comment #7 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Rama Malladi from comment #5)
> So, looks like we aren't impacted much with this commit revert.
>
> I haven't yet tried fp_reassoc_width. Will try shortly.
The revert results in about 0.5% loss on Ne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107413
--- Comment #6 from Rama Malladi ---
The compilation options were: -Ofast -mcpu=native -flto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107413
--- Comment #5 from Rama Malladi ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #2)
> That's interesting - if the reassociation pass has become a bit smarter in
> the last 5 years, we might no longer need this workaround. What is the
> effect on the overal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107413
--- Comment #4 from Mark Wielaard ---
The content of attachment 53775 has been deleted for the following reason:
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q4/019048.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107413
--- Comment #3 from Rama Malladi ---
I will get the effect of this revert for the overall SPEC FP score. I haven't
tried experimenting with fp_reassoc_width values. Will try it and update.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107413
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107413
--- Comment #1 from Rama Malladi ---
$ /home/ubuntu/gccfixissue2/bin/gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/home/ubuntu/gccfixissue2/bin/gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/home/ubuntu/gccfixissue2/libexec/gcc/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/13.0.0/lto-wrapp
19 matches
Mail list logo
