https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115749
--- Comment #9 from kim.walisch at gmail dot com ---
Here I am providing some benchmark results to back up my claim that switching
to the integer modulo by a constant algorithm with 2 multiplication
instructions (which is the default in both Clan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115749
--- Comment #4 from kim.walisch at gmail dot com ---
One possible explanation for why GCC's current integer division by a constant
assembly sequence was chosen back in the day (I guess one or two decades ago)
is that GCC's current assembly sequen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115749
--- Comment #3 from kim.walisch at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> This seems like a tuning issue. In that gcc thinks the shifts and stuff is
> faster than mulx.
>
> What happens if you do -march=native?
>
> Does
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115749
--- Comment #1 from kim.walisch at gmail dot com ---
I played a bit more with my C/C++ code snippet and managed to further simplify
it. The GCC performance issue seems to be mostly caused by GCC producing worse
assembly than Clang for the integer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115749
Bug ID: 115749
Summary: Missed BMI2 optimization on x86-64
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107452
Bug ID: 107452
Summary: Failed to catch C++ exception thrown from
multiarch-function (x64 CPUs)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107287
Bug ID: 107287
Summary: -Wuninitialized false positive (in all GCC versions)
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101831
kim.walisch at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kim.walisch at gmail dot c
