Hello Alfie, I suspect this has to do with 2/3 and 3/3 being on hold, would you be so kind to rerun the SPEC suite after I send v3? Unfortunately, I don't have a SPEC2026 license at the moment (I was using CoreMark-PRO).
Regards, Jovan On 7/10/26 16:43, Alfie Richards wrote: > [Some people who received this message don't often get email from > [email protected]. Learn why this is important at > https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do > not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender > and know the content is safe. > > > On 09/07/2026 14:32, Jeffrey Law wrote: >> >> >> On 7/9/2026 2:15 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 4:28 PM Jovan Dmitrovic >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> In function ivopts_estimate_reg_pressure, return zero if there are >>>> enough registers available so that spilling is not necessary. >>> This is OK. And OK to push independently of 2/3 or 3/3. >>> >>> It might be contrary to how we deal with available >>> register costs in the other cases but there's no target cost for >>> registers when we have enough of them in target_cfgloop. >>> Assuming zero cost makes as much sense as one, costing >>> n_new instead of <whatever factor> * regs_needed doesn't, >>> so the proposed result is strictly better from a logical point. >>> It's the most extreme, so most likely to show up issues if >>> there are any. >> I've pushed this. >> >> jeff > > I'm seeing some regressions over night when this was pushed. Seemingly > because we are spilling to stack more, so this is my main suspect at the > moment. > > I will investigate more but so far I see: > > - -2.2% on spec2026 749.fotonik3d_r > - -1.1% on spec2026 782.lbm_r > - -1.1% on spec2017 510.parest_r > - -1.3% on spec2026 731.astcenc_r > > All on neoverse-v2 > > And > > - -2.7% on spec2017 538.imagick_r > > on neoverse-v1
