[Bug target/90128] 507.cactuBSSN_r is 9-11% slower at -Ofast and native march/tuning on Zen CPUs

2023-01-18 Thread jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90128 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/90128] 507.cactuBSSN_r is 9-11% slower at -Ofast and native march/tuning on Zen CPUs

2022-01-21 Thread jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90128 --- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor --- We still regress, according to LNT 8% on zen2: https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.0=335.437.0=309.437.0=346.437.0=276.437.0=398.437.0=417.437.0=295.437.0; and 12% on zen3:

[Bug target/90128] 507.cactuBSSN_r is 9-11% slower at -Ofast and native march/tuning on Zen CPUs

2019-04-17 Thread jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90128 --- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor --- I have only seen this when compiling with -march=native on Zen, but even at -O2 (which I overlooked yesterday, and which is also confirmed by LNT).

[Bug target/90128] 507.cactuBSSN_r is 9-11% slower at -Ofast and native march/tuning on Zen CPUs

2019-04-17 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90128 --- Comment #8 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7) > Benchmarking r270408 on branch vs. trunk on Haswell doesn't show any > regression > for me. Will double-check with up-to-date CPU 2017 tree. Confirmed.

[Bug target/90128] 507.cactuBSSN_r is 9-11% slower at -Ofast and native march/tuning on Zen CPUs

2019-04-17 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90128 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Component|tree-optimization |target --- Comment #7 from Richard