https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84280
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84280
--- Comment #18 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Patrik Huber from comment #14)
> It even seems a few percent slower after the FDO stuff. But the `
> -fprofile-use` is a bit weird. If there is no .gcda file, it doesn't
> complain. If you give
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84280
--- Comment #17 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 43654
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43654=edit
optimized dump after the revision
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84280
--- Comment #16 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 43653
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43653=edit
optimized dump before the revision
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84280
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84280
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84280
--- Comment #14 from Patrik Huber ---
It even seems a few percent slower after the FDO stuff. But the `
-fprofile-use` is a bit weird. If there is no .gcda file, it doesn't complain.
If you give it a file that doesn't exist (e.g.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84280
--- Comment #13 from Patrik Huber ---
>> Did you try with FDO? (-fprofile-generate, run, -fprofile-use)
I just tried this with g++-7. It didn't help, the final executable has the same
slower run time as in the attached log without the FDO.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84280
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
Hmm, the preprocessed source(s) are hard to work with given the eigen headers
seem to have conditional code on the enabled ISAs.
>From a quick look it seems to be inlining related? My past experience
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84280
--- Comment #10 from Patrik Huber ---
Created attachment 43367
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43367=edit
gcc5_gemm_test.ii
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84280
--- Comment #11 from Patrik Huber ---
Created attachment 43368
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43368=edit
gcc7_gemm_test.ii
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84280
--- Comment #9 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Patrik Huber from comment #6)
> I could also upload you the .ii files but they are 5 MB, which the
> bugtracker doesn't allow (1 MB limit).
preprocessed sources are the .ii files (you can use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84280
--- Comment #8 from Patrik Huber ---
Created attachment 43366
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43366=edit
full_log.txt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84280
--- Comment #7 from Patrik Huber ---
Created attachment 43365
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43365=edit
gemm_test.cpp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84280
--- Comment #6 from Patrik Huber ---
I could also upload you the .ii files but they are 5 MB, which the bugtracker
doesn't allow (1 MB limit).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84280
--- Comment #5 from Patrik Huber ---
Created attachment 43364
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43364=edit
gcc7_gemm_test.s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84280
--- Comment #4 from Patrik Huber ---
Created attachment 43363
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43363=edit
gcc5_gemm_test.s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84280
--- Comment #3 from Patrik Huber ---
@Richard: I'm not 100% sure what you mean with "preprocessed source" but I
googled and you probably mean the output of compiling with "-c -save-temps".
Please see attached.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84280
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.5.0
Summary|Performance
19 matches
Mail list logo
