This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug c++/69564] [5/6 Regression] lto and/or C++ make scimark2 LU slower
- From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 13:50:07 +0000
- Subject: [Bug c++/69564] [5/6 Regression] lto and/or C++ make scimark2 LU slower
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-69564-4 at http dot gcc dot gnu dot org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69564
--- Comment #25 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I benchmarked the patch in comment#17 with a full three-run on all_cpp
on a Haswell machine with -Ofast -march=native (peak is patched).
Estimated Estimated
Base Base Base Peak Peak Peak
Benchmarks Ref. Run Time Ratio Ref. Run Time Ratio
-------------- ------ --------- --------- ------ --------- ---------
400.perlbench NR NR
401.bzip2 NR NR
403.gcc NR NR
429.mcf NR NR
445.gobmk NR NR
456.hmmer NR NR
458.sjeng NR NR
462.libquantum NR NR
464.h264ref NR NR
471.omnetpp 6250 315 19.9 * 6250 312 20.0 *
473.astar 7020 323 21.7 * 7020 323 21.7 *
483.xalancbmk 6900 193 35.8 * 6900 192 35.9 *
Est. SPECint_base2006 --
Est. SPECint2006 --
Estimated Estimated
Base Base Base Peak Peak Peak
Benchmarks Ref. Run Time Ratio Ref. Run Time Ratio
-------------- ------ --------- --------- ------ --------- ---------
410.bwaves NR NR
416.gamess NR NR
433.milc NR NR
434.zeusmp NR NR
435.gromacs NR NR
436.cactusADM NR NR
437.leslie3d NR NR
444.namd 8020 300 26.7 * 8020 300 26.8 *
447.dealII 11440 253 45.3 * 11440 257 44.5 *
450.soplex 8340 218 38.3 * 8340 218 38.2 *
453.povray 5320 120 44.2 * 5320 120 44.2 *
454.calculix NR NR
459.GemsFDTD NR NR
465.tonto NR NR
470.lbm NR NR
481.wrf NR NR
482.sphinx3 NR NR
Est. SPECfp_base2006 --
Est. SPECfp2006 --
dealII might be not noise, three runs are
447.dealII 11440 319 35.8 S 11440 257 44.5 S
447.dealII 11440 252 45.4 S 11440 257 44.5 *
447.dealII 11440 253 45.3 * 11440 256 44.7 S
and I think we can take peak values (stupid CPU freq boosting).
I'm re-running just 447.dealII now, results tomorrow. Binaries do differ.