https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65660
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> --- On April 3, 2015 8:35:00 PM GMT+02:00, rguenther at suse dot de <gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65660 > >--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> >--- >On April 3, 2015 6:22:48 PM GMT+02:00, "hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org" ><gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: >>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65660 >> >>--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org> --- >>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, >>256.bzip2: >>2221, 300.twolf: 3269 Peak: , 164.gzip: 1550, 175.vpr: 2402, 176.gcc: >>2838, >>181.mcf: 3810, 186.crafty: 2811, 197.parser: 1918, 252.eon: 4377, >>255.vortex: >>4353, 256.bzip2: 2334, 300.twolf: 3225) >>Apr 2, 2015 07:20 UTC >>(Values: Base: 164.gzip: 1573, 175.vpr: 2144, 176.gcc: 2798, 181.mcf: >>3739, >>186.crafty: 2906, 197.parser: 1990, 252.eon: 3795, 255.vortex: 3100, >>256.bzip2: >>2214, 300.twolf: 3252 Peak: , 164.gzip: 1554, 175.vpr: 2402, 176.gcc: >>2825, >>181.mcf: 3794, 186.crafty: 2804, 197.parser: 1915, 252.eon: 4339, >>255.vortex: >>4350, 256.bzip2: 2344, 300.twolf: 3264) >> >>Not sure what changed in that range > >I patched the tester with some workaround. Now reverted and real fix committed (but that shouldn't fix it due to the back end cost data)
