On 10/07/2026 16:10, Jovan Dmitrovic wrote:
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
Hi Jovan,
Yeah for sure, I'll trigger a run and let you know the results.
Can you please CC me in the V3 so I remember.
KR,
Alfie
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
