http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286
--- Comment #13 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-11-30 20:23:40 UTC
---
It seems it is caused by 182844
182839
ASSIGNMENT : 64.374 : 244.96 : 63.54
182844
ASSIGNMENT : 57.697 :
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286
--- Comment #6 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-11-17 14:24:44 UTC ---
Created attachment 28715
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28715
Gentoo patches 1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286
--- Comment #7 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-11-17 14:25:23 UTC ---
Created attachment 28716
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28716
Gentoo patches 2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286
--- Comment #8 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-11-17 14:26:18 UTC ---
Created attachment 28717
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28717
Gentoo patches 3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286
--- Comment #9 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-11-17 14:29:20 UTC ---
Created attachment 28718
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28718
build log from non-broken gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286
--- Comment #10 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-11-17 14:30:22 UTC
---
Created attachment 28719
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28719
build log from broken gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286
--- Comment #11 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-11-17 14:52:44 UTC
---
It seems I was wrong. Reverting 175752 doesn't fix performance.
I used also Gentoo patches with patch which reverts 175752.
I thought that it isn't possible,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286
--- Comment #12 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-11-17 15:01:34 UTC
---
more exact CFLAGS
-fomit-frame-pointer -Wall -O3 -funroll-loops -g0 -march=corei7
-ffast-math -fno-PIE -fno-exceptions -fno-stack-protector -static
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-16
18:28:30 UTC ---
Created attachment 28712
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28712
assign.c
Assignment extracted into a self-contained testcase, does
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286
--- Comment #2 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-11-15 16:12:57 UTC ---
Created attachment 28699
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28699
function Assignment without 175752
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286
--- Comment #3 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-11-15 16:16:05 UTC ---
Created attachment 28700
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28700
function Assignment with 175752
according to gprof Assignment is called
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286
--- Comment #4 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-11-15 17:01:22 UTC ---
Bytemark source code
http://www.tux.org/~mayer/linux/nbench-byte-2.2.3.tar.gz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2012-11-12
13:44:32 UTC ---
r175752 is a follow-up fix to r175589, so my guess is that it's the combination
of the two that's causing the regression.
Can you construct a small
14 matches
Mail list logo
