This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Haney's real matrix test regression
> Hello ...
> yesterday i was not here in the office / at my E-mail account;
> and i haven't read the gcc-mailing list yet. Thus i currently don't
> know, if this is "urgent" anymore:
Well, in the meanwhile I could establish beyond any reasonable doubt that it is not
"simply" a question of partial register stalls, therefore an AMD test (vs any other
x86 check) is not strictly necessary anymore :-)
Have a look at:
It is obvious that the innermost loop, that over i, the most important one, is
*much* smaller and faster for gcc3.0.2 (or 3.1 of just a week ago... :-(
> > My i686 is in fact a PII: perhaps someone may run "Haney Speed" built with
> > today's 3.1 on an AMD core to exclude quickly the possibility of another nasty
> > partial register stall???
> Hm, up to my knowledge, the AMD Athlon didn't suffer (at least that much)
> from partial register stalls (??) Athlon suffers from the higher latencies
> of the VIA (or VIA alike AMD) chipsets (Why is VIA-KT266A faster
> than KT266 ?) and his small TLB's.
If you are curious about PRS, I learned all I know about those (prompted by Richard
Henderson) from the docs available from:
> Anyway, currently there is no gcc-3.1 installed on my system(s). Any
> suggestions for a recommended version, that builds clean on a i686 (binutils
> 18.104.22.168.xx in /usr/bin/ & 2.11.2 in /usr/local/bin) and a i586-system
> (binutils 22.214.171.124.xx only at the moment)?
> Peter Schorsch
Recently, I have started keeping my trees updated using CVS, but I'm seeing that a
snapshot sufficiently recent (which should display clearly the problem) is
available from gcc.gnu.org:
Thank you very much Peter!
Such sudden performance regression make me crazy!