This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Loop unrolling-related SPEC regressions?
Andreas Jaeger wrote:
>Paolo Carlini <email@example.com> writes:
>>Perhaps we could ask Andreas to help by running an exceptional SPEC test with
>>-funroll-loops instead (ideally, 2 different runs, pre- and post- the unroller
>Sorry for joining in late, I've been travelling.
>Tell me exactly which patch I should revert and which compiler flags I
>should use and I'll bootstrap two GCCs and run one SPECint run using
>the different compilers for base and peak.
Thank you very much for your feedback Andreas.
With your help we could try to understand the following: RTH patch
affects negatively SPEC runs (*) for a PEAK setup identical to that
which you currently use *but* with -funroll-loops (instead of
-funroll-all-loops) or not? In the process, we could also understand
more of the issue itself -funroll-all-loops vs. -funroll-loops.
Therefore, if you agree, this is the patch which should be tentatively
(*) When I say "affect negatively" I really mean the following: there is
a good amount of evidence that due to that patch the following tests
loose many points: 164.gzip, 186.crafty, 200.sixtrack.
Dipartimento di Scienze Ambientali
UniversitÓ degli Studi della Tuscia
Largo dell'UniversitÓ, I-01100, Viterbo, ITALY