------- Comment #18 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-06-04 21:14 -------
(In reply to comment #12)
> Maybe someone should timings without the second reassoc.
> Jeff mentioned the loop optimizers cause new reassociations:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-12/msg00469.html
> And Daniel Berlin agreed with him (but this was before a DCE was added):
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-12/msg00473.html
>
Here are SPEC CPU 2K -O2 -ffast-math differences between revision
125030 without the second reassoc and revision 125029 on Intel64:
(r125030 w/o reassoc2 - r125029)/r125029
164.gzip -0.282686%
175.vpr -0.928613%
176.gcc -0.34774%
181.mcf -0.430339%
186.crafty 0.430192%
197.parser -0.231839%
252.eon -0.487013%
253.perlbmk -0.592417%
254.gap 0%
255.vortex -0.211775%
256.bzip2 -1.2024%
300.twolf 0.0389257%
Est. SPECint_base2000 -0.344149%
168.wupwise -0.881057%
171.swim -0.690449%
172.mgrid 3.89688%
173.applu -4.26743%
177.mesa -2.82981%
178.galgel -2.04283%
179.art -2.65207%
183.equake -0.347222%
187.facerec 0.191791%
188.ammp -5.33402%
189.lucas 1.65726%
191.fma3d 0.586667%
200.sixtrack -0.405954%
301.apsi 1.47219%
Est. SPECfp_base2000 -0.836636%
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32183
