https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103195
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103195
--- Comment #6 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz ---
> So nothing to see? I guess our unit growth limit doesn't trigger because it's
> a small (benchmark) unit?
Yep, unit growths do not apply for very small units. ipa-cp heuristics
still IMO
> So nothing to see? I guess our unit growth limit doesn't trigger because it's
> a small (benchmark) unit?
Yep, unit growths do not apply for very small units. ipa-cp heuristics
still IMO needs work and be based on relative speedups rather then
absolute for the cutoffs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103195
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
So nothing to see? I guess our unit growth limit doesn't trigger because it's
a small (benchmark) unit?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103195
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target Milestone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103195
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mjambor at suse dot cz
--- Comment #4 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103195
--- Comment #3 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz ---
> > threader stuff would be my bet, but we need to bisect this (tfft2 is also
> > quite small)
>
> Bad bet ;) It's caused by r12-5113-gd70ef65692fced7a.
Hehe, that was my guess yeterday. T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103195
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Status|UNCONFIRMED
