This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Loop unrolling-related SPEC regressions?
Paolo Carlini <email@example.com> writes:
> Andreas Jaeger wrote:
>>Paolo Carlini <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.
I have some scripts  that bootstrap GCC and automatically run SPEC.
I'll try to setup some tests tomorrow and send the results,
 If anybody likes to have my scripts, just ask me.
SuSE Labs email@example.com