https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112919
--- Comment #16 from chenglulu <chenglulu at loongson dot cn> --- (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #15) > > Hi，Ruoyao: > > > > The results of spec2006 on 3A6000 were obtained, I removed the more > > volatile > > test items, '-falign-loops=8 -falign-functions=8 -falign-jumps=32 > > -falign-lables=4' this set of parameters got the highest score. This is the > > same combination of parameters as the coremark tested by Xu Chenghua. > > > > The test of the 3A5000 will also be completed around the 15th of this month, > > so I want to change the code after the test results of the 3a5000 are out. > > What do you think? > > Ok to me. > > I'm getting some different results on LA664: > > 22031.284424 Compiler flags : -O2 -falign-labels=4 -falign-functions=8 > -falign-loops=8 -falign-jumps=32 -DPERFORMANCE_RUN=1 -lrt > > vs the "best" one: > > 22075.055188 Compiler flags : -O2 -falign-labels=4 -falign-functions=32 > -falign-loops=16 -falign-jumps=8 -DPERFORMANCE_RUN=1 -lrt > > maybe such a 0.1% difference is some random fluctuation, or hardware or > kernel configuration difference anyway. It's also possible that I'll find a few more machines to test the coremark score.
