https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114978
--- Comment #40 from Chen Chen ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #36)
> (In reply to Chen Chen from comment #35)
> >
> > 1. unknown patch committed between 20250105-20250112 on gcc15: works for
> > gcc15, possibly also works for gcc14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114978
--- Comment #42 from Chen Chen ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #39)
> (In reply to Chen Chen from comment #38)
> > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #37)
> > > So if we revert r15-7525 now, would things work normally with just
> > > r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114978
--- Comment #41 from Chen Chen ---
(In reply to Chen Chen from comment #40)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #36)
> > (In reply to Chen Chen from comment #35)
> > >
> > > 1. unknown patch committed between 20250105-20250112 on gcc15: w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114978
--- Comment #38 from Chen Chen ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #37)
> So if we revert r15-7525 now, would things work normally with just r15-6657?
> If so I'd suggest to revert r15-7525 (now or when GCC 16 stage 1 starts) and
> close thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114978
--- Comment #35 from Chen Chen ---
(In reply to chenglulu from comment #34)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #29)
> > For 15 r15-7525 is intended for this issue. But I don't know if it's a good
> > idea to backport it, as it's only a worka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114978
--- Comment #31 from Chen Chen ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #29)
> For 15 r15-7525 is intended for this issue. But I don't know if it's a good
> idea to backport it, as it's only a workaround, not a proper fix.
>
> Could someone try
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114978
--- Comment #27 from Chen Chen ---
I am a bit confused with your statement. For AOSC gcc 13.2 I got 8.52 with
parameters "-g -Ofast -march=la464 -flto", and 8.76 with parameters "-g -Ofast
-march=la464". These results are similar to yours.
For
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114978
--- Comment #28 from Chen Chen ---
I have seen that this regression was fixed on gcc15. Is there any plan to fix
it on gcc14 as well? Thanks.
(In reply to chenglulu from comment #26)
> (In reply to Tianyang Chou from comment #24)
> > (In reply
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114978
--- Comment #14 from Chen Chen ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #13)
> (In reply to Chen Chen from comment #12)
>
> > No. I used system default gcc.
>
> AOSC backports *many* changes not in upstream GCC 13.2 to their "13.2":
> https://g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114978
--- Comment #12 from Chen Chen ---
(In reply to chenglulu from comment #11)
> (In reply to Chen Chen from comment #0)
> > We tested Loongarch64 CPU Loongson 3A6000 with "LA664" architecture in Linux
> > operating system AOSC OS 11.4.0 (default g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114978
--- Comment #7 from Chen Chen ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.0=471.407.0
>
> shows a recent improvement that then regressed again, maybe you have a
> similar artifact wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114978
Bug ID: 114978
Summary: 548.exchange2_r 14%-28% regressions on Loongarch64
after gcc 14 snapshot 20240317
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
12 matches
Mail list logo
