H. J. Lu wrote:
We are working on complete data of SPEC CPU 2K/2006 on Core 2 Duo.
It will take about a week.
There are results' comparison I got for gcc 4.2 revisions 117890,
117891 and 121952 on SPEC CPU2K/2006
SPEC CPU2000:
117891 vs 117890 121952 vs 117890
164.gzip
Mark Mitchell wrote:
Vladimir Makarov wrote:
I remember nocona tunning gave 30% improvement SPECFp2000 for Intel
nocona in 64 bit mode in comparison with the default x86_64 gcc tuning
(for k8). So such big improvement is definetly mostly from new
-mtune=generic.
Well, then, lets get
Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> I remember nocona tunning gave 30% improvement SPECFp2000 for Intel
> nocona in 64 bit mode in comparison with the default x86_64 gcc tuning
> (for k8). So such big improvement is definetly mostly from new
> -mtune=generic.
Well, then, lets get numbers for other targets
Jan Hubicka wrote:
Grigory Zagorodnev wrote:
Mark Mitchell wrote:
Excellent question; I should have asked for that as well. If 4.2 has
gained on 4.1 in other respects, the 4.7% drop might represent a smaller
regression relative to 4.1.
There is the 4.2 (r120817) vs. 4.1
> Grigory Zagorodnev wrote:
> > Mark Mitchell wrote:
> >> Excellent question; I should have asked for that as well. If 4.2 has
> >> gained on 4.1 in other respects, the 4.7% drop might represent a smaller
> >> regression relative to 4.1.
> >>
> > There is the 4.2 (r120817) vs. 4.1.2 release FP per
Grigory Zagorodnev wrote:
> Mark Mitchell wrote:
>> Excellent question; I should have asked for that as well. If 4.2 has
>> gained on 4.1 in other respects, the 4.7% drop might represent a smaller
>> regression relative to 4.1.
>>
> There is the 4.2 (r120817) vs. 4.1.2 release FP performance compa
Mark Mitchell wrote:
Excellent question; I should have asked for that as well. If 4.2 has
gained on 4.1 in other respects, the 4.7% drop might represent a smaller
regression relative to 4.1.
There is the 4.2 (r120817) vs. 4.1.2 release FP performance comparison
numbers. SPECfp_base2006 of gcc
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 03:53:55PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> >> This is 4.7% drop of SPECfp_base2006 ratio (geomean of individual FP
> >> ratios).
>
> Clearly, 4.7% is significant. Grigory, thanks for the measurements!
>
> >> Here is the full set of changes in cp
Richard Guenther wrote:
>> This is 4.7% drop of SPECfp_base2006 ratio (geomean of individual FP
>> ratios).
Clearly, 4.7% is significant. Grigory, thanks for the measurements!
>> Here is the full set of changes in cpu2k6/fp performance of GCC 4.2
>> compiler between r116799 and r120817, measure
On 2/20/07, Grigory Zagorodnev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mark Mitchell wrote:
>> FP performance regressions of the recent GCC 4.2 (revision 120817)
>> compiler against September GCC 4.2 (revision 116799)
> What does that translate to in terms of overall score?
>
Hi,
This is 4.7% drop of SPECfp_b
Mark Mitchell wrote:
FP performance regressions of the recent GCC 4.2 (revision 120817)
compiler against September GCC 4.2 (revision 116799)
What does that translate to in terms of overall score?
Hi,
This is 4.7% drop of SPECfp_base2006 ratio (geomean of individual FP
ratios).
Here is the f
On 2/19/07, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Daniel Berlin wrote:
>> 2. What is the effort required to backport the necessary infrastructure
>> from 4.3? I'm not looking for "a lot" or "is hard", but rather, "two
>> weeks" or "six months". What needs to be backported, and what are the
Daniel Berlin wrote:
>> 2. What is the effort required to backport the necessary infrastructure
>> from 4.3? I'm not looking for "a lot" or "is hard", but rather, "two
>> weeks" or "six months". What needs to be backported, and what are the
>> challenges?
>
> Including bug fixes, i'd guess 2 mo
H. J. Lu wrote:
> FP performance regressions of the recent GCC 4.2 (revision 120817)
> compiler against September GCC 4.2 (revision 116799)
> 410.bwaves -6.3%
> 433.milc-7.0%
> 437.leslie3d-25.4%
> 450.soplex -3.9%
> 459.G
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 03:16:12PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
> >> > > > It looks like your changeset listed bellow makes performance
> >> > > > regression ~40% on SPEC2006/leslie3d. I will try to create minimal
> >> > > > test for this issue this week and update you in a
On 2/19/07, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Daniel Berlin wrote:
>> > > > It looks like your changeset listed bellow makes performance
>> > > > regression ~40% on SPEC2006/leslie3d. I will try to create minimal
>> > > > test for this issue this week and update you in any case.
>> > The
Daniel Berlin wrote:
>> > > > It looks like your changeset listed bellow makes performance
>> > > > regression ~40% on SPEC2006/leslie3d. I will try to create minimal
>> > > > test for this issue this week and update you in any case.
>> > The price of fixing them in 4.2 was a serious performance
On 2/18/07, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2/18/07, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/17/07, H. J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 01:35:28PM +0300, Vladimir Sysoev wrote:
> > > Hello, Daniel
> > >
> > > It looks like your changeset listed b
On 2/18/07, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2/17/07, H. J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 01:35:28PM +0300, Vladimir Sysoev wrote:
> > Hello, Daniel
> >
> > It looks like your changeset listed bellow makes performance
> > regression ~40% on SPEC2006/leslie3d.
On 2/17/07, H. J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 01:35:28PM +0300, Vladimir Sysoev wrote:
> Hello, Daniel
>
> It looks like your changeset listed bellow makes performance
> regression ~40% on SPEC2006/leslie3d. I will try to create minimal
> test for this issue this week an
On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 01:35:28PM +0300, Vladimir Sysoev wrote:
> Hello, Daniel
>
> It looks like your changeset listed bellow makes performance
> regression ~40% on SPEC2006/leslie3d. I will try to create minimal
> test for this issue this week and update you in any case.
>
That is a known iss
> Vladimir Sysoev writes:
Vladimir> It looks like your changeset listed bellow makes performance
Vladimir> regression ~40% on SPEC2006/leslie3d. I will try to create minimal
Vladimir> test for this issue this week and update you in any case.
I believe that this is known and expected.
22 matches
Mail list logo
