[Bug tree-optimization/38785] [4.5/4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] huge performance regression on EEMBC bitmnp01

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38785 Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vmakarov

[Bug tree-optimization/38785] [4.5/4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] huge performance regression on EEMBC bitmnp01

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38785 --- Comment #38 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-22 13:05:38 UTC --- yet another variant... void f (int i, long *a, long *b) { int sum = 0; for (; --i = 0; a++, b++) { b[i] = 0; #define PART(I) if (t())

[Bug tree-optimization/38785] [4.5/4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] huge performance regression on EEMBC bitmnp01

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38785 Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |REOPENED

[Bug tree-optimization/38785] [4.5/4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] huge performance regression on EEMBC bitmnp01

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38785 --- Comment #36 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-21 17:59:10 UTC --- (In reply to comment #35) Too bad, we really need to make some model on how many PHI copies we introduce... I agree with Richard's comment

[Bug tree-optimization/38785] [4.5/4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] huge performance regression on EEMBC bitmnp01

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38785 --- Comment #34 from Igor Zamyatin izamyatin at gmail dot com 2012-11-20 21:00:39 UTC --- (In reply to comment #32) Would be possible to double check if this problem is still fixed after the fix to the tree-ssa-pre patch?

[Bug tree-optimization/38785] [4.5/4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] huge performance regression on EEMBC bitmnp01

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38785 Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|WAITING

[Bug tree-optimization/38785] [4.5/4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] huge performance regression on EEMBC bitmnp01

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38785 --- Comment #33 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-16 18:00:54 UTC --- And at -O3 the testcase does not look really good indeed bb 7: # cstore_51 = PHI 0(5), 2147483647(6) # prephitmp_82 = PHI 1073741823(5),

[Bug tree-optimization/38785] [4.5/4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] huge performance regression on EEMBC bitmnp01

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38785 Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|4.5.4 |4.8.0

[Bug tree-optimization/38785] [4.5/4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] huge performance regression on EEMBC bitmnp01

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38785 --- Comment #30 from Maxim Kuvyrkov mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-28 01:56:59 UTC --- Author: mkuvyrkov Date: Sat Apr 28 01:56:54 2012 New Revision: 186928 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186928 Log: PR

[Bug tree-optimization/38785] [4.5/4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] huge performance regression on EEMBC bitmnp01

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38785 Maxim Kuvyrkov mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug tree-optimization/38785] [4.5/4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] huge performance regression on EEMBC bitmnp01

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38785 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|4.4.7 |4.5.4 ---