[Bug tree-optimization/31090] Revision 121302 causes 30% performance regression

2007-06-23 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com
--- Comment #15 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2007-06-23 10:00 --- (In reply to comment #14) Subject: Bug 31090 Author: dnovillo Date: Wed Apr 11 17:14:06 2007 New Revision: 123719 HJ, what is the situation w.r.t performance regression after the above patch was committed to

[Bug tree-optimization/31090] Revision 121302 causes 30% performance regression

2007-06-23 Thread hjl at lucon dot org
--- Comment #16 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-06-23 14:46 --- HJ, what is the situation w.r.t performance regression after the above patch was committed to SVN? I think it still needs tuning. I got the following on Linux/Intel64: (r125740 -

[Bug tree-optimization/31090] Revision 121302 causes 30% performance regression

2007-04-11 Thread dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #14 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-11 17:14 --- Subject: Bug 31090 Author: dnovillo Date: Wed Apr 11 17:14:06 2007 New Revision: 123719 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=123719 Log: PR 30735 PR 31090 *

[Bug tree-optimization/31090] Revision 121302 causes 30% performance regression

2007-03-09 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-09 10:32 --- It looks like a no-op change. For reference: --- ChangeLog (revision 121301) +++ ChangeLog (revision 121302) @@ -1,3 +1,41 @@ +2007-01-28 Daniel Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] + + * tree.h (struct

[Bug tree-optimization/31090] Revision 121302 causes 30% performance regression

2007-03-09 Thread hjl at lucon dot org
--- Comment #3 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-03-09 17:11 --- Gcc 4.3 revision 122738 has the same issue. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31090

[Bug tree-optimization/31090] Revision 121302 causes 30% performance regression

2007-03-09 Thread hjl at lucon dot org
--- Comment #4 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-03-09 17:40 --- Created an attachment (id=13180) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13180action=view) A breakdown testcase xxx.f90 is the problem. -fdump-tree-all shows that revision 121302 generates very different alias

[Bug tree-optimization/31090] Revision 121302 causes 30% performance regression

2007-03-09 Thread dberlin at dberlin dot org
--- Comment #5 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-09 17:51 --- Subject: Re: Revision 121302 causes 30% performance regression Could you attach dumps for fdump-tree-alias-vops-details-blocks-stats (tarr'ing up the resulting dumps is fine) for before and after? I don't have a

[Bug tree-optimization/31090] Revision 121302 causes 30% performance regression

2007-03-09 Thread hjl at lucon dot org
--- Comment #6 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-03-09 17:57 --- Created an attachment (id=13181) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13181action=view) Dumps of -fdump-tree-alias-vops-details-blocks-stats 121301 is from revision 121301 and 121302 is from revision 121302.

[Bug tree-optimization/31090] Revision 121302 causes 30% performance regression

2007-03-09 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-09 23:00 --- The obvoious difference is more precise alias information: -bar: Maximum number of VOPS needed per statement: 80 +bar: Maximum number of VOPS needed per statement: 71 (and the resulting different partitioning).

Re: [Bug tree-optimization/31090] Revision 121302 causes 30% performance regression

2007-03-09 Thread Andrew Pinski
On 9 Mar 2007 23:00:55 -, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Other than that, more precise alias information can cause more register pressure, too. Fix the register allocator instead of complaining about this issue. I am sorry but if people want a compiler which

[Bug tree-optimization/31090] Revision 121302 causes 30% performance regression

2007-03-09 Thread pinskia at gmail dot com
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gmail dot com 2007-03-09 23:05 --- Subject: Re: Revision 121302 causes 30% performance regression On 9 Mar 2007 23:00:55 -, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Other than that, more precise alias information can cause more

[Bug tree-optimization/31090] Revision 121302 causes 30% performance regression

2007-03-09 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-09 23:17 --- I didn't complain about register pressure. You need to get a thicker skin. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31090

[Bug tree-optimization/31090] Revision 121302 causes 30% performance regression

2007-03-09 Thread dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #10 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-09 23:48 --- (In reply to comment #7) The obvoious difference is more precise alias information: -bar: Maximum number of VOPS needed per statement: 80 +bar: Maximum number of VOPS needed per statement: 71 See, it was

[Bug tree-optimization/31090] Revision 121302 causes 30% performance regression

2007-03-09 Thread dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #11 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-09 23:53 --- I'm already handling this family of performance problems. I need a few more days to finish the WIP patch I have. In the meantime, see if increasing --param max-aliased-vops works around the problem. --

[Bug tree-optimization/31090] Revision 121302 causes 30% performance regression

2007-03-09 Thread hjl at lucon dot org
--- Comment #12 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-03-10 00:04 --- --param max-aliased-vops=100 works: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 597]$ make /usr/gcc-next/bin/gfortran -c -O2 --param max-aliased-vops=100 -o 301.o test597.f90 /usr/gcc-4.3/bin/gfortran -o 301 301.o -Wl,-rpath,/usr/gcc-4.3/lib64

[Bug tree-optimization/31090] Revision 121302 causes 30% performance regression

2007-03-09 Thread dnovillo at redhat dot com
--- Comment #13 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2007-03-10 00:07 --- Subject: Re: Revision 121302 causes 30% performance regression hjl at lucon dot org wrote on 03/09/07 19:04: --param max-aliased-vops=100 works: OK, thanks. I'll add this PR to the mix then. --

[Bug tree-optimization/31090] Revision 121302 causes 30% performance regression

2007-03-08 Thread hjl at lucon dot org
--- Comment #1 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-03-08 20:04 --- Created an attachment (id=13173) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13173action=view) A testcase /usr/gcc-next/bin/gfortran -c -O2 -o 301.o test597.f90 /usr/gcc-next/bin/gfortran -o 301 301.o