H. J. Lu wrote:
We are working on complete data of SPEC CPU 2K/2006 on Core 2 Duo.
It will take about a week.
There are results' comparison I got for gcc 4.2 revisions 117890,
117891 and 121952 on SPEC CPU2K/2006
SPEC CPU2000:
117891 vs 117890 121952 vs 117890
164.gzip
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 03:53:55PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Richard Guenther wrote:
This is 4.7% drop of SPECfp_base2006 ratio (geomean of individual FP
ratios).
Clearly, 4.7% is significant. Grigory, thanks for the measurements!
Here is the full set of changes in cpu2k6/fp
Mark Mitchell wrote:
Excellent question; I should have asked for that as well. If 4.2 has
gained on 4.1 in other respects, the 4.7% drop might represent a smaller
regression relative to 4.1.
There is the 4.2 (r120817) vs. 4.1.2 release FP performance comparison
numbers. SPECfp_base2006 of gcc
Grigory Zagorodnev wrote:
Mark Mitchell wrote:
Excellent question; I should have asked for that as well. If 4.2 has
gained on 4.1 in other respects, the 4.7% drop might represent a smaller
regression relative to 4.1.
There is the 4.2 (r120817) vs. 4.1.2 release FP performance comparison
Grigory Zagorodnev wrote:
Mark Mitchell wrote:
Excellent question; I should have asked for that as well. If 4.2 has
gained on 4.1 in other respects, the 4.7% drop might represent a smaller
regression relative to 4.1.
There is the 4.2 (r120817) vs. 4.1.2 release FP performance
Jan Hubicka wrote:
Grigory Zagorodnev wrote:
Mark Mitchell wrote:
Excellent question; I should have asked for that as well. If 4.2 has
gained on 4.1 in other respects, the 4.7% drop might represent a smaller
regression relative to 4.1.
There is the 4.2 (r120817) vs.
Vladimir Makarov wrote:
I remember nocona tunning gave 30% improvement SPECFp2000 for Intel
nocona in 64 bit mode in comparison with the default x86_64 gcc tuning
(for k8). So such big improvement is definetly mostly from new
-mtune=generic.
Well, then, lets get numbers for other targets!
Mark Mitchell wrote:
Vladimir Makarov wrote:
I remember nocona tunning gave 30% improvement SPECFp2000 for Intel
nocona in 64 bit mode in comparison with the default x86_64 gcc tuning
(for k8). So such big improvement is definetly mostly from new
-mtune=generic.
Well, then, lets
Mark Mitchell wrote:
FP performance regressions of the recent GCC 4.2 (revision 120817)
compiler against September GCC 4.2 (revision 116799)
What does that translate to in terms of overall score?
Hi,
This is 4.7% drop of SPECfp_base2006 ratio (geomean of individual FP
ratios).
Here is the
On 2/20/07, Grigory Zagorodnev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark Mitchell wrote:
FP performance regressions of the recent GCC 4.2 (revision 120817)
compiler against September GCC 4.2 (revision 116799)
What does that translate to in terms of overall score?
Hi,
This is 4.7% drop of SPECfp_base2006
Richard Guenther wrote:
This is 4.7% drop of SPECfp_base2006 ratio (geomean of individual FP
ratios).
Clearly, 4.7% is significant. Grigory, thanks for the measurements!
Here is the full set of changes in cpu2k6/fp performance of GCC 4.2
compiler between r116799 and r120817, measured on
Daniel Berlin wrote:
It looks like your changeset listed bellow makes performance
regression ~40% on SPEC2006/leslie3d. I will try to create minimal
test for this issue this week and update you in any case.
The price of fixing them in 4.2 was a serious performance drop.
There's
On 2/19/07, Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Daniel Berlin wrote:
It looks like your changeset listed bellow makes performance
regression ~40% on SPEC2006/leslie3d. I will try to create minimal
test for this issue this week and update you in any case.
The price of fixing
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 03:16:12PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Daniel Berlin wrote:
It looks like your changeset listed bellow makes performance
regression ~40% on SPEC2006/leslie3d. I will try to create minimal
test for this issue this week and update you in any case.
The
H. J. Lu wrote:
FP performance regressions of the recent GCC 4.2 (revision 120817)
compiler against September GCC 4.2 (revision 116799)
410.bwaves -6.3%
433.milc-7.0%
437.leslie3d-25.4%
450.soplex -3.9%
Daniel Berlin wrote:
2. What is the effort required to backport the necessary infrastructure
from 4.3? I'm not looking for a lot or is hard, but rather, two
weeks or six months. What needs to be backported, and what are the
challenges?
Including bug fixes, i'd guess 2 months to be
On 2/19/07, Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Daniel Berlin wrote:
2. What is the effort required to backport the necessary infrastructure
from 4.3? I'm not looking for a lot or is hard, but rather, two
weeks or six months. What needs to be backported, and what are the
challenges?
On 2/17/07, H. J. Lu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 01:35:28PM +0300, Vladimir Sysoev wrote:
Hello, Daniel
It looks like your changeset listed bellow makes performance
regression ~40% on SPEC2006/leslie3d. I will try to create minimal
test for this issue this week and
On 2/18/07, Daniel Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/17/07, H. J. Lu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 01:35:28PM +0300, Vladimir Sysoev wrote:
Hello, Daniel
It looks like your changeset listed bellow makes performance
regression ~40% on SPEC2006/leslie3d. I will try
On 2/18/07, Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/18/07, Daniel Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/17/07, H. J. Lu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 01:35:28PM +0300, Vladimir Sysoev wrote:
Hello, Daniel
It looks like your changeset listed bellow makes
Hello, Daniel
It looks like your changeset listed bellow makes performance
regression ~40% on SPEC2006/leslie3d. I will try to create minimal
test for this issue this week and update you in any case.
Feel free to ask if any question.
FYI:
Hardware is Core2Duo.
Compiler config
Target:
Vladimir Sysoev writes:
Vladimir It looks like your changeset listed bellow makes performance
Vladimir regression ~40% on SPEC2006/leslie3d. I will try to create minimal
Vladimir test for this issue this week and update you in any case.
I believe that this is known and expected. GCC
On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 01:35:28PM +0300, Vladimir Sysoev wrote:
Hello, Daniel
It looks like your changeset listed bellow makes performance
regression ~40% on SPEC2006/leslie3d. I will try to create minimal
test for this issue this week and update you in any case.
That is a known issue:
23 matches
Mail list logo
