https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94472
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #4) > (In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #3) > > My benchmarking setup is currently gone so unfortunately no, not easily. > > I'll be re-measuring everything on a different computer with a slightly > > different CPU model soon, so after that I guess I could. But it is most > > likely the limits, yes. > > Yeah, easy to fix, but it takes some time. > But this is not more important than your life. Note tuning parameters is hard and takes a lot of time. If we adjust things to make 400.perlbench happy which is btw. from SPEC 2006(!) we're going to regress things elsewhere. It's going to be a whack-a-mole game and definitely not suitable at this stage (inliner re-tuning is also prone to trigger latent GCC issues in previously fine compiling apps). > Shall I raise this to P1 so it prevents gcc-10 release? Definitely not. Setting priority is the release managers job, and btw. bug priority is meaningless for non-regression bugreports.
