https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112919
--- Comment #11 from Xi Ruoyao <xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (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? :) > > > > > > 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 time will be longer. > > > I will reply here as soon as the results are available. > > > > Can we determine on LA664 if the current default alignment is better than > > not aligning at all? Coremarks results suggest the current default is even > > worse than not aligning, but arguably Coremarks is far different from real > > workloads. However if the current default is not better than not aligning > > (or the difference is only marginal and is likely covered up by some random > > fluctuation) we can disable the aligning for LA664. > > > > (Maybe we and the HW engineers have done some repetitive work or even some > > work cancelling each other out :(. ) > On March 8th I should be able to get the test results on the 3A6000 machine, > I need to judge the fluctuation of the spec and then let's see if the > default alignment is set? I just mean if we cannot get a decisive result before GCC 14 we may just turn off alignment. But if we can get a decisive result as expected in Mar we can just use the best we'll find.
