[Bug rtl-optimization/89275] [9 Regression] Slowdown in mcperf on POWER
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89275 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME --- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt --- Actually, they did testing of LLVM and couldn't confirm Phoronix's numbers there at all. So I think this whole thing is probably measurement error. Closing for now, we can reopen if anybody can independently reproduce this.
[Bug rtl-optimization/89275] [9 Regression] Slowdown in mcperf on POWER
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89275 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed||2019-02-13 Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt --- Either way, confirmed that we have an issue here. But I don't yet have information to support this as a 9 regression.
[Bug rtl-optimization/89275] [9 Regression] Slowdown in mcperf on POWER
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89275 --- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt --- I just heard back from the performance lead. He indicates that they can reproduce the numbers from 9.0 trunk (compiled Feb 8, versus Feb 3 as reported by Phoronix), but the numbers from 8.2 as tagged do not reproduce. GCC 9 degrades a little on Add, but is in the noise range for Set/Append. If we accept this (and I see no reason not to at the moment), we still have the question of why GCC lags LLVM on this benchmark for *both* 8 and 9. So we will continue to work on root-cause analysis.
[Bug rtl-optimization/89275] [9 Regression] Slowdown in mcperf on POWER
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89275 --- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt --- I asked our performance team to root-cause this when the report came out. If they can reproduce we can try to bisect it.
[Bug rtl-optimization/89275] [9 Regression] Slowdown in mcperf on POWER
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89275 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org, ||segher at gcc dot gnu.org, ||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek --- Can anyone reproduce that and if yes, can it be bisected?
