https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85103
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.3 |8.4
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85103
--- Comment #21 from Pat Haugen ---
> Knowing what inline decision matters for VPR, I can try to fix it too.
Gathering some perf data, the hot functions for various revisions are as
follows. All other functions report < 0.5% of execution time.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85103
--- Comment #20 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Looking at our nightly spec runs, the bzip2 degradation has indeed been
> cleaned
> up. But it looks like 175.vpr degraded another 2% or so over the last couple
> days.
Knowing what inline decision matters
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85103
--- Comment #19 from Pat Haugen ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #18)
> which makes it to be inlined. Does it solve the perofmrance problem for both
> benchmarks?
Looking at our nightly spec runs, the bzip2 degradation has indeed been
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85103
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #18 from Jan Hubicka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85103
--- Comment #17 from Jan Hubicka ---
I am re-doing benchmarks now to see where we are standing with gcc9.
I have checked reducing max-inline-insns-single as Richard mentioned, reducing
to 200 or 300 basically brings one regression and that is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85103
--- Comment #16 from Pat Haugen ---
>
> Do you observe the same slowdown if you restore either of the params to
> the value before the r257582 change?
>
--param max-inline-insns-auto=40 results in the same degradation.
--param
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85103
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Pat Haugen from comment #3)
> (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #1)
> > Pat, can you try to figure out what value of min-speedup is neeed to recover
> > from this regression?
>
> Using
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85103
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85103
rdapp at linux dot ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rdapp at linux dot ibm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85103
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85103
--- Comment #12 from Bill Schmidt ---
Does this qualify as a P2 bug? This is a serious degradation not only on P7
but also P8 and P9.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85103
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85103
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.2 |8.3
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85103
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85103
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.0 |8.2
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek
16 matches
Mail list logo
