https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107409
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107409
--- Comment #23 from Rama Malladi ---
(In reply to Rama Malladi from comment #22)
> I will close this issue as we were unable to reproduce the perf drop going
> from gcc-7 to gcc-8 on a Graviton2 based instance. The performance of
> 519.lbm_r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107409
--- Comment #22 from Rama Malladi ---
I will close this issue as we were unable to reproduce the perf drop going from
gcc-7 to gcc-8 on a Graviton2 based instance. The performance of 519.lbm_r
built with gcc-7.4 was same as that with gcc-8.5.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107409
--- Comment #21 from Rama Malladi ---
I did another triage for perf loss on Graviton 2 processor (neoverse-n1) based
instance and found this commit: `a9a4edf0e71bbac9f1b5dcecdcf9250111d16889` to
be the reason. As I had indicated in my earlier
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107409
--- Comment #20 from Rama Malladi ---
@Martin J and @Sebastian P, Let me walk you through the perf data and my
triage.
First, my triage has been on Graviton 3 (neoverse-v1) processor based
instances. Next, I was looking for perf delta going
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107409
--- Comment #19 from Rama Malladi ---
Thanks @Sebastian and @Martin J. I will get another bisect between GCC 7-and-8.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107409
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||spop at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107409
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107409
--- Comment #16 from Martin Liška ---
@Honza: ???
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107409
--- Comment #15 from Rama Malladi ---
Hi, Can we review this issue and suggest next steps/ action please? Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107409
--- Comment #14 from Rama Malladi ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #13)
> Note the mentioned revision is a fix and yes, sometimes these revisions can
> end up with a regression as profile estimation is a complex guess.
Yes, possibly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107409
--- Comment #13 from Martin Liška ---
Note the mentioned revision is a fix and yes, sometimes these revisions can end
up with a regression as profile estimation is a complex guess.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107409
--- Comment #12 from Rama Malladi ---
I found difference in dumps at various stages of the compilation for the
mainline GCC and with update_max_bb_count() commented. Here are the details:
Mainline: Commit ID:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107409
--- Comment #11 from Rama Malladi ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #10)
> @Honza ?
Just checking if this can be fixed/ implemented. Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107409
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107409
--- Comment #9 from Rama Malladi ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> Can you please share perf-profile before and after the revision?
>
> Note I can't see it for Altra aarch64 CPU:
>
16 matches
Mail list logo
