https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112919
--- Comment #10 from chenglulu <chenglulu at loongson dot cn> --- (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #9) > (In reply to chenglulu from comment #8) > > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #7) > > > Any update? :) > > > > Well, I haven't run it yet. Since this does not have a big impact on the > > spec score, I am currently testing it on a single-channel machine, so the > > test time will be longer. > > I will reply here as soon as the results are available. > > Can we determine on LA664 if the current default alignment is better than > not aligning at all? Coremarks results suggest the current default is even > worse than not aligning, but arguably Coremarks is far different from real > workloads. However if the current default is not better than not aligning > (or the difference is only marginal and is likely covered up by some random > fluctuation) we can disable the aligning for LA664. > > (Maybe we and the HW engineers have done some repetitive work or even some > work cancelling each other out :(. ) On March 8th I should be able to get the test results on the 3A6000 machine, I need to judge the fluctuation of the spec and then let's see if the default alignment is set? In addition, I also tested it on the 3A5000 again, and the results will be available around March 15th. The conclusion of coremark from our team leader Xu Chenghua is that '-falign-labels' have a regular effect on the performance of coremark, and when the value of '-falign-labels' is greater than 4 bytes, the performance decreases significantly.
