[Bug target/37367] [4.4/4.5 Regression] gcc-4.4/4.5 speed regression

2010-03-22 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 


--- Comment #10 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-03-22 10:49 ---
Created an attachment (id=20157)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20157&action=view)
gcc-minimal-tune=core2.patch

Here is a minimal (and untested too) patch for that.
A bigger patch would drop all PROCESSOR_CORE2, core2_cost, CPU_CORE2 etc.
references (AFAIK there aren't that many in the sources).


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37367

[Bug target/37367] [4.4/4.5 Regression] gcc-4.4/4.5 speed regression

2010-03-22 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 


--- Comment #9 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-03-22 10:47 ---
>From the numbers Vladimir posted for SPEC2k, x86_64 -mtune=generic vs.
-mtune=core2 has the same rate for SPECint, with core2 slightly smaller code
size, for SPECfp -mtune=core2 has 0.4% worse rate due to 10% drop on facerec
(otherwise it would be 0.4% win) with slightly smaller code for -mtune=core2.
On x86 SPECint is slightly worse with -mtune=core2 and even code size is
slightly larger, SPECfp on the other side has both slightly better rate and
code size with -mtune=core2.  So using generic tuning for core2 is possible.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37367

[Bug target/37367] [4.4/4.5 Regression] gcc-4.4/4.5 speed regression

2010-03-22 Thread rguenther at suse dot de 


--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de  2010-03-22 10:01 ---
Subject: Re:  [4.4/4.5 Regression] gcc-4.4/4.5 speed
 regression

On Sun, 21 Mar 2010, hjl dot tools at gmail dot com wrote:

> --- Comment #7 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com  2010-03-21 16:20 
> ---
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > Shouldn't there be a PR about the suboptimal performance from the core2 
> > tuning
> > (in hopes that original contributors from Intel will revisit these issues)?
> > 
> 
> Intel didn't contribute -march=core2. I have been telling
> people to use -mtune=generic.

So should we make -march=core2 turn on -mtune=generic then?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37367

[Bug target/37367] [4.4/4.5 Regression] gcc-4.4/4.5 speed regression

2010-03-21 Thread hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 


--- Comment #7 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com  2010-03-21 16:20 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Shouldn't there be a PR about the suboptimal performance from the core2 tuning
> (in hopes that original contributors from Intel will revisit these issues)?
> 

Intel didn't contribute -march=core2. I have been telling
people to use -mtune=generic.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37367

[Bug target/37367] [4.4/4.5 Regression] gcc-4.4/4.5 speed regression

2010-03-21 Thread howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 


--- Comment #6 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu  2010-03-21 
14:44 ---
Shouldn't there be a PR about the suboptimal performance from the core2 tuning
(in hopes that original contributors from Intel will revisit these issues)?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37367

[Bug target/37367] [4.4/4.5 Regression] gcc-4.4/4.5 speed regression

2010-03-21 Thread steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 


--- Comment #5 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-03-21 12:20 ---
Bug in WAITING for a long time, no feedback. Very small, hard-to-catch code
difference. It's been noted before that the core2 scheduler description
(contributed by Intel itself!) often results in worse code than the generic
scheduler description. All in all, no reason to track this anymore.


-- 

steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
 Resolution||WONTFIX


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37367

[Bug target/37367] [4.4/4.5 Regression] gcc-4.4/4.5 speed regression

2010-01-21 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 


-- 

jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Target Milestone|4.4.3   |4.4.4


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37367

[Bug target/37367] [4.4/4.5 Regression] gcc-4.4/4.5 speed regression

2009-10-15 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 


-- 

jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Target Milestone|4.4.2   |4.4.3


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37367

[Bug target/37367] [4.4/4.5 Regression] gcc-4.4/4.5 speed regression

2009-07-22 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 


-- 

jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Target Milestone|4.4.1   |4.4.2


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37367

[Bug target/37367] [4.4/4.5 Regression] gcc-4.4/4.5 speed regression

2009-04-21 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 


-- 

jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Target Milestone|4.4.0   |4.4.1


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37367