On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 02:06:48PM -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On 1/12/07, H. J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 08:06:31PM -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> >> On 1/11/07, Grigory Zagorodnev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >> >Menezes, Evandro wrote:
> >> >> Though not as p
On 1/12/07, H. J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 08:06:31PM -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On 1/11/07, Grigory Zagorodnev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Menezes, Evandro wrote:
> >> Though not as pronounced, definitely significant.
> >>
> >
> >Using binary search I've detecte
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 08:06:31PM -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On 1/11/07, Grigory Zagorodnev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Menezes, Evandro wrote:
> >> Though not as pronounced, definitely significant.
> >>
> >
> >Using binary search I've detected that 30% performance regression of
> >cpu2006/43
On 1/11/07, Grigory Zagorodnev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Menezes, Evandro wrote:
> Though not as pronounced, definitely significant.
>
Using binary search I've detected that 30% performance regression of
cpu2006/437.leslie3d benchmark is caused by revision 117891.
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?vi
Menezes, Evandro wrote:
Though not as pronounced, definitely significant.
Using binary search I've detected that 30% performance regression of
cpu2006/437.leslie3d benchmark is caused by revision 117891.
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=rev&revision=117891
I assume same commit causes regres
On 12/13/06, Menezes, Evandro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Meissner, Michael wrote:
> >>> 437.leslie3d -26%
> > it was felt that the PPRE patches that were added on
> November 13th were
> > the cause of the slowdown:
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-12/msg00023.html
> >
> > Has anybody tri
> Meissner, Michael wrote:
> >>> 437.leslie3d -26%
> > it was felt that the PPRE patches that were added on
> November 13th were
> > the cause of the slowdown:
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-12/msg00023.html
> >
> > Has anybody tried doing a run with just ppre disabled?
>
> Right. PPRE
On 12/13/06, Grigory Zagorodnev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Meissner, Michael wrote:
>>> 437.leslie3d-26%
> it was felt that the PPRE patches that were added on November 13th were
> the cause of the slowdown:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-12/msg00023.html
>
> Has anybody tried doing a r
Meissner, Michael wrote:
437.leslie3d-26%
it was felt that the PPRE patches that were added on November 13th were
the cause of the slowdown:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-12/msg00023.html
Has anybody tried doing a run with just ppre disabled?
Right. PPRE appears to be the reason of slow
> -Original Message-
> From: H. J. Lu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 1:09 PM
> To: Menezes, Evandro
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; rajagopal, dwarak; Meissner,
> Michael
> Subject: Re: Serious SPEC CPU 2006 FP performance regres
On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 11:35:27AM -0600, Menezes, Evandro wrote:
> HJ,
>
> > > Gcc 4.3 revision 119497 has very poor SPEC CPU 2006 FP performance
> > > regressions on P4, Pentium M and Core Duo, comparing aganst
> > > gcc 4.2 20060910. With -O2, the typical regressions look like
> > >
> > >
HJ,
> > Gcc 4.3 revision 119497 has very poor SPEC CPU 2006 FP performance
> > regressions on P4, Pentium M and Core Duo, comparing aganst
> > gcc 4.2 20060910. With -O2, the typical regressions look like
> >
> > Gcc 4.2 Gcc 4.3
> > 410.bwaves 9.89
On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 01:02:27PM -0600, Menezes, Evandro wrote:
> HJ,
>
> I'll run the three worst offenders below and get back to y'all.
>
> The full results will take longer.
Hi Evandro,
I also saw similar issues on x86-64 with -O2 -ffast-math:
gcc-4.2 rev 116820 gcc
HJ,
I'll run the three worst offenders below and get back to y'all.
The full results will take longer.
--
___
Evandro Menezes AMDAustin, TX
> -Original Message-
> From: H. J. Lu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 07:39:45PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> H. J. Lu wrote:
>
> >Gcc 4.3 revision 119497 has very poor SPEC CPU 2006 FP performance
> >regressions on P4, Pentium M and Core Duo, comparing aganst
> >gcc 4.2 20060910. With -O2, the typical regressions look like
> >
> >
> >
> I th
H. J. Lu wrote:
Gcc 4.3 revision 119497 has very poor SPEC CPU 2006 FP performance
regressions on P4, Pentium M and Core Duo, comparing aganst
gcc 4.2 20060910. With -O2, the typical regressions look like
I think that you are looking at the same problem as
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-12/
16 matches
Mail list logo