https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77468
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77468
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77468
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|aarch64-linux-gnu |aarch64-linux-gnu,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77468
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77468
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #11)
> The recent 2nd bump on x86_64 is from
>
>
> r243995 | hubicka | 2017-01-01 16:40:29
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77468
--- Comment #13 from Aldy Hernandez ---
The aarch64-linux-gnu regression originally reported for -mcpu=cortex-a53 was
caused by:
commit 08993ad1c669cab64baf352f79cd7f8584dd8e0c
Author: jgreenhalgh
Date: Thu Oct 1 09:33:40 2015 +
[Pat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77468
--- Comment #14 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Since the culprit for the reported regression is aarch64 specific, I think we
should open an independent x86-64 PR (or an architecture independent PR if the
other reported problem by Richi is reproducible o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77468
--- Comment #15 from James Greenhalgh ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #13)
> The aarch64-linux-gnu regression originally reported for -mcpu=cortex-a53
> was caused by:
>
> commit 08993ad1c669cab64baf352f79cd7f8584dd8e0c
> Author: jg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77468
--- Comment #16 from Aldy Hernandez ---
>
> Could you dump me the assembly of the hot loop before and after that change
> - I'll see if we're doing anything particularly offensive with the
> scheduling, though I still don't have access to the so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77468
--- Comment #17 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Created attachment 40573
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40573&action=edit
preprocessed testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77468
--- Comment #18 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #17)
> Created attachment 40573 [details]
> preprocessed testcase
Here's the preprocessed testcase generated on:
openSUSE Leap 42.1 (aarch64)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77468
--- Comment #19 from James Greenhalgh ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #18)
> (In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #17)
> > Created attachment 40573 [details]
> > preprocessed testcase
>
> Here's the preprocessed testcase generat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77468
James Greenhalgh changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77468
--- Comment #21 from PeteVine ---
It would be great if https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53659 could
get squashed in one fell swoop.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77468
PeteVine changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77468
James Greenhalgh changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77468
--- Comment #24 from PeteVine ---
I did a git pull and restarted the build so unless something didn't get
reconfigured, it definitely should've been included. If you see the
improvement, never mind then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77468
--- Comment #25 from PeteVine ---
The original issue never mentioned -Ofast or -ffast-math and I see no
difference at -Ofast, indeed:
http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1702153-RI-CRAYFAST424
@jgreenhalgh Can you confirm there's no regression @
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77468
--- Comment #26 from PeteVine ---
OK, maybe this SoC is kinky, I give up:
http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1702154-RI-CRAYFAST326
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77468
--- Comment #27 from James Greenhalgh ---
(In reply to PeteVine from comment #25)
> The original issue never mentioned -Ofast or -ffast-math and I see no
> difference at -Ofast, indeed:
>
> http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1702153-RI-CRAYFAST4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77468
--- Comment #28 from PeteVine ---
Lesson learnt, thanks!
If you look at the last -Ofast result (or 1702153-RI-CRAYFAST467), the suspect
difference is there (the compiler had been rebuilt from scratch with all the
patches), and I even managed to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77468
--- Comment #29 from PeteVine ---
I used a different distribution image (binutils 2.25, no
--fix-cortex-a53-835769 option) but the results haven't changed (thunderx
tuning must have improved though as it stopped offering any benefit over A53):
h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77468
--- Comment #30 from PeteVine ---
Or rather, the difference observed in:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77468#c7
is still there @ -Ofast, but the Cortex-A53 result is in the same range now.
I'll have to investigate the effect of -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77468
--- Comment #31 from PeteVine ---
Indeed, that was it! I've probably found the source of my A53 issues:
http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1703040-RI-CRAYERRAT99
This means comment #29 exposes a different issue and Cortex A53 codegen still
is s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77468
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |target
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77468
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77468
James Greenhalgh changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77468
--- Comment #6 from PeteVine ---
Yes, Gcc 6 seems to be affected too.
The flags used were explicitly shown on the phoronix graph (cortex-a53), but
generic codegen might possibly suffer as well, similar to my discovery in:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77468
--- Comment #7 from PeteVine ---
$ gcc $CFLAGS -o c-ray-mt c-ray-mt.c -lm -lpthread && ./c-ray-mt -t 32 -s
160x120 -r 8 -i sphfract -o output.ppm
-mcpu=cortex-a53 : Rendering took: 2 seconds (1958 milliseconds)
-mcpu=cortex-a73 : Rendering took:
29 matches
Mail list logo
