Loop unrolling-related SPEC regressions?

[Paolo Carlini]

Andreas Jaeger wrote:

> > That's really enlightening Honza! Thanks for the clarification.
> > We should also remember this when someone compares the SPEC numbers made available
> > by other compiler producers with those of GCC: my guess is that this kind of
> > rationale for choosing the PEAK flags it's unfortunately not so widespread...
>
> Didn't I mention it that way?  Feel free to send a patch for my SPEC
> page to clarify what we're doing...

No, your pages indeed present the tests exactly in this way. It's my fault not having
read the descriptive text attentively before.

Anyway, I look forward to see your numbers relative to the PEAK-type flags (but
-funroll-loops) with/without RTH unroller fix.

Thanks,
Paolo.