https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65660
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> --- On April 3, 2015 6:22:48 PM GMT+02:00, "hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65660 > >--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org> --- >Performance seems to be back at Apr 2 >Apr 2, 2015 16:20 UTC >(Values: Base: 164.gzip: 1562, 175.vpr: 2384, 176.gcc: 2873, 181.mcf: >3743, >186.crafty: 2922, 197.parser: 2002, 252.eon: 4144, 255.vortex: 3345, >256.bzip2: >2221, 300.twolf: 3269 Peak: , 164.gzip: 1550, 175.vpr: 2402, 176.gcc: >2838, >181.mcf: 3810, 186.crafty: 2811, 197.parser: 1918, 252.eon: 4377, >255.vortex: >4353, 256.bzip2: 2334, 300.twolf: 3225) >Apr 2, 2015 07:20 UTC >(Values: Base: 164.gzip: 1573, 175.vpr: 2144, 176.gcc: 2798, 181.mcf: >3739, >186.crafty: 2906, 197.parser: 1990, 252.eon: 3795, 255.vortex: 3100, >256.bzip2: >2214, 300.twolf: 3252 Peak: , 164.gzip: 1554, 175.vpr: 2402, 176.gcc: >2825, >181.mcf: 3794, 186.crafty: 2804, 197.parser: 1915, 252.eon: 4339, >255.vortex: >4350, 256.bzip2: 2344, 300.twolf: 3264) > >Not sure what changed in that range I patched the tester with some workaround.
