[Bug target/113235] SMHasher SHA3-256 benchmark is almost 40% slower vs. Clang (not enough complete loop peeling)

2024-04-24 Thread xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113235 --- Comment #13 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to David Malcolm from comment #10) > (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #4) > > I keep mentioning to Larabel that he should use -fno-semantic-interposition, > > but he doesn't. > > Possibly a sill

[Bug target/113235] SMHasher SHA3-256 benchmark is almost 40% slower vs. Clang (not enough complete loop peeling)

2024-04-24 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113235 --- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #11) > (In reply to David Malcolm from comment #10) > > (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #4) > > > I keep mentioning to Larabel that he should use > > > -fno-se

[Bug target/113235] SMHasher SHA3-256 benchmark is almost 40% slower vs. Clang (not enough complete loop peeling)

2024-04-24 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113235 --- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to David Malcolm from comment #10) > (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #4) > > I keep mentioning to Larabel that he should use -fno-semantic-interposition, > > but he doesn't. > > Possibly a

[Bug target/113235] SMHasher SHA3-256 benchmark is almost 40% slower vs. Clang (not enough complete loop peeling)

2024-04-24 Thread dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113235 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug target/113235] SMHasher SHA3-256 benchmark is almost 40% slower vs. Clang (not enough complete loop peeling)

2024-04-24 Thread hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113235 --- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka --- Phoronix still claims the difference https://www.phoronix.com/review/gcc14-clang18-amd-zen4/2

[Bug target/113235] SMHasher SHA3-256 benchmark is almost 40% slower vs. Clang (not enough complete loop peeling)

2024-01-08 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113235 --- Comment #8 from Richard Biener --- Created attachment 57006 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57006&action=edit unroll heuristics this one

[Bug target/113235] SMHasher SHA3-256 benchmark is almost 40% slower vs. Clang (not enough complete loop peeling)

2024-01-08 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113235 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug target/113235] SMHasher SHA3-256 benchmark is almost 40% slower vs. Clang (not enough complete loop peeling)

2024-01-05 Thread hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113235 --- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka --- The internal loops are: static const unsigned keccakf_rotc[24] = { 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, 21, 28, 36, 45, 55, 2, 14, 27, 41, 56, 8, 25, 43, 62, 18, 39, 61, 20, 44 }; static const unsigned keccakf_piln[24] = {

[Bug target/113235] SMHasher SHA3-256 benchmark is almost 40% slower vs. Clang (not enough complete loop peeling)

2024-01-05 Thread hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113235 Jan Hubicka changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|SMHasher SHA3-256 benchmark |SMHasher SHA3-256 benchmark

[Bug target/113235] SMHasher SHA3-256 benchmark is almost 40% slower vs. Clang

2024-01-05 Thread hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113235 Jan Hubicka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4

[Bug target/113235] SMHasher SHA3-256 benchmark is almost 40% slower vs. Clang

2024-01-04 Thread xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113235 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 CC|

[Bug target/113235] SMHasher SHA3-256 benchmark is almost 40% slower vs. Clang on AMD Zen 4

2024-01-04 Thread xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113235 --- Comment #2 from Xi Ruoyao --- The test file can be downloaded from http://phoronix-test-suite.com/benchmark-files/smhasher-20220822.tar.xz. Just build it with cmake and run "./SMHasher --test=Speed sha3-256". The building system enables -O

[Bug target/113235] SMHasher SHA3-256 benchmark is almost 40% slower vs. Clang on AMD Zen 4

2024-01-04 Thread aros at gmx dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113235 --- Comment #1 from Artem S. Tashkinov --- Also valid for MTL: https://www.phoronix.com/review/intel-meteorlake-gcc-clang/2