[Bug target/37367] [4.4/4.5 Regression] gcc-4.4/4.5 speed regression

2010-03-22 Thread rguenther at suse dot de
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de 2010-03-22 10:01 --- Subject: Re: [4.4/4.5 Regression] gcc-4.4/4.5 speed regression On Sun, 21 Mar 2010, hjl dot tools at gmail dot com wrote: --- Comment #7 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-03-21 16:20 --- (In reply

[Bug target/37367] [4.4/4.5 Regression] gcc-4.4/4.5 speed regression

2010-03-22 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #9 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-22 10:47 --- From the numbers Vladimir posted for SPEC2k, x86_64 -mtune=generic vs. -mtune=core2 has the same rate for SPECint, with core2 slightly smaller code size, for SPECfp -mtune=core2 has 0.4% worse rate due to 10% drop on

[Bug target/37367] [4.4/4.5 Regression] gcc-4.4/4.5 speed regression

2010-03-22 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #10 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-22 10:49 --- Created an attachment (id=20157) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20157action=view) gcc-minimal-tune=core2.patch Here is a minimal (and untested too) patch for that. A bigger patch would drop all

[Bug target/37367] [4.4/4.5 Regression] gcc-4.4/4.5 speed regression

2010-03-21 Thread steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-21 12:20 --- Bug in WAITING for a long time, no feedback. Very small, hard-to-catch code difference. It's been noted before that the core2 scheduler description (contributed by Intel itself!) often results in worse code than the

[Bug target/37367] [4.4/4.5 Regression] gcc-4.4/4.5 speed regression

2010-03-21 Thread howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu
--- Comment #6 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2010-03-21 14:44 --- Shouldn't there be a PR about the suboptimal performance from the core2 tuning (in hopes that original contributors from Intel will revisit these issues)? --

[Bug target/37367] [4.4/4.5 Regression] gcc-4.4/4.5 speed regression

2010-03-21 Thread hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #7 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-03-21 16:20 --- (In reply to comment #6) Shouldn't there be a PR about the suboptimal performance from the core2 tuning (in hopes that original contributors from Intel will revisit these issues)? Intel didn't contribute

[Bug target/37367] [4.4/4.5 Regression] gcc-4.4/4.5 speed regression

2010-01-21 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|4.4.3 |4.4.4 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37367

[Bug target/37367] [4.4/4.5 Regression] gcc-4.4/4.5 speed regression

2009-10-15 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|4.4.2 |4.4.3 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37367

[Bug target/37367] [4.4/4.5 Regression] gcc-4.4/4.5 speed regression

2009-07-22 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|4.4.1 |4.4.2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37367

[Bug target/37367] [4.4/4.5 Regression] gcc-4.4/4.5 speed regression

2009-04-21 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|4.4.0 |4.4.1 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37367