[Bug target/103498] Spec 2017 imagick_r is 2.62% slower on Power10 with pc-relative addressing compared to not using pc-relative addressing

[meissner at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103498

Michael Meissner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Resolution|--- |FIXED
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

--- Comment #4 from Michael Meissner  ---
I just ran spec 2017 on a Power10 machine running RHEL 8, using the GCC 13.1
GCC and the Advance Toolchain 15.0 library.  In that run, I see no significant
(more than 1%) regressions if we use -mno-pcrel.  In fact, imagick_r was nearly
2% faster using PC-relative addressing.

[Bug target/103498] Spec 2017 imagick_r is 2.62% slower on Power10 with pc-relative addressing compared to not using pc-relative addressing

[bergner at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103498

--- Comment #3 from Peter Bergner  ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #2)
> Mike, do you still see this?

Ping again.  Is this still an issue?

[Bug target/103498] Spec 2017 imagick_r is 2.62% slower on Power10 with pc-relative addressing compared to not using pc-relative addressing

[segher at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103498

--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool  ---
Mike, do you still see this?

[Bug target/103498] Spec 2017 imagick_r is 2.62% slower on Power10 with pc-relative addressing compared to not using pc-relative addressing

[guihaoc at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103498

HaoChen Gui  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||guihaoc at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #1 from HaoChen Gui  ---
Tested imagick_r on Power10 DD2. The performance is the same between Ofast with
pcrel and Ofast without pcrel. Not sure if DD2 fixed the regression.