https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112919
--- Comment #13 from chenglulu <chenglulu at loongson dot cn> --- (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #9) > (In reply to chenglulu from comment #8) > > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #7) > > > Any update? :) > > > > Well, I haven't run it yet. Since this does not have a big impact on the > > spec score, I am currently testing it on a single-channel machine, so the > > test time will be longer. > > I will reply here as soon as the results are available. > > Can we determine on LA664 if the current default alignment is better than > not aligning at all? Coremarks results suggest the current default is even > worse than not aligning, but arguably Coremarks is far different from real > workloads. However if the current default is not better than not aligning > (or the difference is only marginal and is likely covered up by some random > fluctuation) we can disable the aligning for LA664. > > (Maybe we and the HW engineers have done some repetitive work or even some > work cancelling each other out :(. ) The results of spec2006 on 3A6000 were obtained, I removed the more volatile test items, '-falign-loops=8 -falign-functions=8 -falign-jumps=32 -falign-lables=4' this set of parameters got the highest score. This is the same combination of parameters as the coremark tested by Xu Chenghua.
