Loop unrolling-related SPEC regressions?

[Laurent Guerby]

I just merged your base results with:

<http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2000q4/cpu2000-20001204-00426.asc>

                 GCC   S   G/S   SP  G/SP
    164.gzip     461 472 0.976  563 0.818
    175.vpr      259 255 1.015  285 0.908
    176.gcc      323 248 1.302  355 0.909
    181.mcf      180 194 0.927  196 0.918
    186.crafty   524 632 0.829  678 0.772
    197.parser   325 372 0.873  373 0.871
    252.eon      642 692 0.927 1056 0.607
    253.perlbmk  495 668 0.741  720 0.687
    254.gap      366 441 0.829  441 0.829
    255.vortex   410 702 0.584  731 0.560
    256.bzip2    305 335 0.910  343 0.889
    300.twolf    284 340 0.835  360 0.788

GCC = GCC base, S = SPEC base, SP = SPEC peak

This was with the closest SPEC run I found, however
the MHz are different, so I don't know if a rescale is needed:

SPEC web: CPU: 1.2GHz AMD Athlon processor A1200AMT3B
Andreas : CPU MHz: 1102.541

Apparent weaknesses on base are vortex and perlbmk, has
anyone looked at them? perl might be interesting, 25%
base performance hit on such a complex piece of free software,
there must be some critical interpreter piece of code
completely miscompiled by CVS GCC (performance-wise).

Any perl hacker willing to zoom on it?
Does anyone know if it is a performance regression from previous GCC?

I assume eon and vortex are easy targets for "one
optimisation gets all" and might be less interesting
to look at.

-- 
Laurent Guerby <guerby@acm.org>