[Bug target/112919] LoongArch: Alignments in tune parameters are not precise and they regress performance

2024-04-08 Thread xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112919 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/112919] LoongArch: Alignments in tune parameters are not precise and they regress performance

2024-04-07 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112919 --- Comment #22 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by LuluCheng : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8f0ff6b998748f3581e0f06e3108193866b1209d commit r14-9824-g8f0ff6b998748f3581e0f06e3108193866b1209d Author: Lulu Cheng Date: Tue

[Bug target/112919] LoongArch: Alignments in tune parameters are not precise and they regress performance

2024-04-01 Thread chenglulu at loongson dot cn via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112919 --- Comment #21 from chenglulu --- (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #20) > (In reply to chenglulu from comment #19) > > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #18) > > > (In reply to chenglulu from comment #17) > > > > > > > The results of

[Bug target/112919] LoongArch: Alignments in tune parameters are not precise and they regress performance

2024-04-01 Thread xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112919 --- Comment #20 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to chenglulu from comment #19) > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #18) > > (In reply to chenglulu from comment #17) > > > > > The results of spec2006 on LA464 are: > > > -falign-labels=4

[Bug target/112919] LoongArch: Alignments in tune parameters are not precise and they regress performance

2024-03-27 Thread chenglulu at loongson dot cn via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112919 --- Comment #19 from chenglulu --- (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #18) > (In reply to chenglulu from comment #17) > > > The results of spec2006 on LA464 are: > > -falign-labels=4 -falign-functions=32 -falign-loops=16 -falign-jumps=16 > >

[Bug target/112919] LoongArch: Alignments in tune parameters are not precise and they regress performance

2024-03-27 Thread xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112919 --- Comment #18 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to chenglulu from comment #17) > The results of spec2006 on LA464 are: > -falign-labels=4 -falign-functions=32 -falign-loops=16 -falign-jumps=16 Would you send a patch for them or prefer I to do

[Bug target/112919] LoongArch: Alignments in tune parameters are not precise and they regress performance

2024-03-25 Thread chenglulu at loongson dot cn via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112919 --- Comment #17 from chenglulu --- (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

[Bug target/112919] LoongArch: Alignments in tune parameters are not precise and they regress performance

2024-03-07 Thread chenglulu at loongson dot cn via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112919 --- Comment #16 from chenglulu --- (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

[Bug target/112919] LoongArch: Alignments in tune parameters are not precise and they regress performance

2024-03-07 Thread xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112919 --- Comment #15 from Xi Ruoyao --- > 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

[Bug target/112919] LoongArch: Alignments in tune parameters are not precise and they regress performance

2024-03-06 Thread chenglulu at loongson dot cn via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112919 --- Comment #14 from chenglulu --- (In reply to chenglulu from comment #13) > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #9) > > (In reply to chenglulu from comment #8) > > > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #7) > > > > Any update? :) > > > > > >

[Bug target/112919] LoongArch: Alignments in tune parameters are not precise and they regress performance

2024-03-06 Thread chenglulu at loongson dot cn via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112919 --- Comment #13 from chenglulu --- (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #9) > (In reply to chenglulu from comment #8) > > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #7) > > > Any update? :) > > > > Well, I haven't run it yet. Since this does not have

[Bug target/112919] LoongArch: Alignments in tune parameters are not precise and they regress performance

2024-03-01 Thread chenglulu at loongson dot cn via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112919 --- Comment #12 from chenglulu --- (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #11) > (In reply to chenglulu from comment #10) > > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #9) > > > (In reply to chenglulu from comment #8) > > > > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from

[Bug target/112919] LoongArch: Alignments in tune parameters are not precise and they regress performance

2024-03-01 Thread xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112919 --- Comment #11 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to chenglulu from comment #10) > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #9) > > (In reply to chenglulu from comment #8) > > > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #7) > > > > Any update? :) > > > > > >

[Bug target/112919] LoongArch: Alignments in tune parameters are not precise and they regress performance

2024-03-01 Thread chenglulu at loongson dot cn via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112919 --- Comment #10 from chenglulu --- (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #9) > (In reply to chenglulu from comment #8) > > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #7) > > > Any update? :) > > > > Well, I haven't run it yet. Since this does not have

[Bug target/112919] LoongArch: Alignments in tune parameters are not precise and they regress performance

2024-02-29 Thread xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112919 --- Comment #9 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to chenglulu from comment #8) > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #7) > > Any update? :) > > Well, I haven't run it yet. Since this does not have a big impact on the > spec score, I am currently

[Bug target/112919] LoongArch: Alignments in tune parameters are not precise and they regress performance

2024-02-01 Thread chenglulu at loongson dot cn via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112919 --- Comment #8 from chenglulu --- (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #7) > Any update? :) Well, I haven't run it yet. Since this does not have a big impact on the spec score, I am currently testing it on a single-channel machine, so the test

[Bug target/112919] LoongArch: Alignments in tune parameters are not precise and they regress performance

2024-02-01 Thread xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112919 --- Comment #7 from Xi Ruoyao --- Any update? :)

[Bug target/112919] LoongArch: Alignments in tune parameters are not precise and they regress performance

2024-01-15 Thread chenglulu at loongson dot cn via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112919 --- Comment #6 from chenglulu --- Hi,Ruoyao: I am testing the spec2006 scores when the parameters 'align-loops', 'align-jumps', 'align-functions', and 'align-labels' are '1', '8', '16', and '32' respectively. However, the test was suspended due

[Bug target/112919] LoongArch: Alignments in tune parameters are not precise and they regress performance

2023-12-11 Thread chenglulu at loongson dot cn via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112919 --- Comment #5 from chenglulu --- (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #4) > Lulu: can you help to run some other benchmarks like SPEC (I don't have an > access to it) and update these values for LA464 and LA664? No problem, this is what I

[Bug target/112919] LoongArch: Alignments in tune parameters are not precise and they regress performance

2023-12-10 Thread xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112919 --- Comment #4 from Xi Ruoyao --- On LA664: 19970.709626 -falign-labels=4 -falign-functions=16 -falign-loops=64 -falign-jumps=16 19970.709626 -falign-labels=4 -falign-functions=32 -falign-loops=32 -falign-jumps=16 19976.028765

[Bug target/112919] LoongArch: Alignments in tune parameters are not precise and they regress performance

2023-12-10 Thread xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112919 --- Comment #3 from Xi Ruoyao --- Top 10 configurations on LA464 for Coremark: 12757.542897 -falign-labels=4 -falign-functions=8 -falign-loops=32 -falign-jumps=32 12763.241863 -falign-labels=4 -falign-functions=64 -falign-loops=32

[Bug target/112919] LoongArch: Alignments in tune parameters are not precise and they regress performance

2023-12-09 Thread xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112919 --- Comment #2 from Xi Ruoyao --- On LA464: 13095 with GCC 13.2.0 The best I've got is: 12639 with GCC 14.0.0 + -falign-loops=8 -falign-labels=4 -falign-jumps=4 -falign-functions=16 and I cannot really explain why this is the best. With

[Bug target/112919] LoongArch: Alignments in tune parameters are not precise and they regress performance

2023-12-08 Thread xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112919 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://github.com/loongson