This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug tree-optimization/64434] [5 Regression] Performance regression after operand cannibalization (r216728).
- From: "ysrumyan at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 16:25:24 +0000
- Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/64434] [5 Regression] Performance regression after operand cannibalization (r216728).
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-64434-4 at http dot gcc dot gnu dot org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64434
--- Comment #6 from Yuri Rumyantsev <ysrumyan at gmail dot com> ---
H.J.
I put before/after assembly files into bug attachment. We saw slowdown
on SLM and HSW for 32-bit on eembc2.0, e.g. des degradated on 36%
(SLM) and 7%(HSW). But we did not see slowdown on any 64-bit x86.
2014-12-29 18:48 GMT+03:00 hjl.tools at gmail dot com
<gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64434
>
> H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> changed:
>
> What |Removed |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Status|NEW |WAITING
>
> --- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> ---
> Please show before and after assembly codes. Do we get slowdown on all
> processors?
>
> --
> You are receiving this mail because:
> You reported the bug.