[Bug target/119723] 30% slowdown of 436.cactusADM on AMD Zen2 since r15-9204-g0520ef274762f1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119723 --- Comment #4 from Filip Kastl --- Bisection points to r15-7637-g94d01a88470293 being the first fast commit. Author: Richard Biener Date: Wed Feb 12 11:20:10 2025 +0100 tree-optimization/86270 - improve SSA coalescing for loop exit tes

[Bug target/119723] New: 30% slowdown of 436.cactusADM on AMD Zen2 since r15-9204-g0520ef274762f1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119723 Bug ID: 119723 Summary: 30% slowdown of 436.cactusADM on AMD Zen2 since r15-9204-g0520ef274762f1 Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: misse

[Bug target/119723] 30% slowdown of 436.cactusADM on AMD Zen2 since r15-9204-g0520ef274762f1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119723 --- Comment #1 from Filip Kastl --- > There was also this 10% regression for -O2 -march=native s/regression/slowdown/ to be more clear. This slowdown also isn't a regression against GCC 14.

[Bug middle-end/119541] New: [15 Regression] asan: dynamic-stack-buffer-overflow in modify_call_for_omp_dispatch at gimplify.cc:3976

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119541 Bug ID: 119541 Summary: [15 Regression] asan: dynamic-stack-buffer-overflow in modify_call_for_omp_dispatch at gimplify.cc:3976 Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONF

[Bug target/112548] 429.mcf sometimes speeds up by 5% and then slows down again (AMD zen4 CPU, LTO, PGO)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112548 Filip Kastl changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[14/15 regression] 5% exec |429.mcf sometimes speeds up

[Bug middle-end/26163] [meta-bug] missed optimization in SPEC (2k17, 2k and 2k6 and 95)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163 Bug 26163 depends on bug 119055, which changed state. Bug 119055 Summary: [15 Regression] 5-8% slowdown of 456.hmmer since r15-7605-gc5752c1f01316a https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119055 What|Removed

[Bug target/119055] [15 Regression] 5-8% slowdown of 456.hmmer since r15-7605-gc5752c1f01316a

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119055 Filip Kastl changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/26163] [meta-bug] missed optimization in SPEC (2k17, 2k and 2k6 and 95)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163 Bug 26163 depends on bug 114412, which changed state. Bug 114412 Summary: [14/15 Regression] 7% slowdown of 436.cactusADM on aarch64 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114412 What|Removed |Added --

[Bug target/114412] [14/15 Regression] 7% slowdown of 436.cactusADM on aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114412 Filip Kastl changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/116763] [15 Regression] 14-19% slowdown of 436.cactusADM on aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116763 Filip Kastl changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/26163] [meta-bug] missed optimization in SPEC (2k17, 2k and 2k6 and 95)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163 Bug 26163 depends on bug 116763, which changed state. Bug 116763 Summary: [15 Regression] 14-19% slowdown of 436.cactusADM on aarch64 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116763 What|Removed |Added -

[Bug target/119495] New: 8% slowdown of 436.cactusADM on AMD Zen2 since r15-7895-gb191e8bdecf881

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119495 Bug ID: 119495 Summary: 8% slowdown of 436.cactusADM on AMD Zen2 since r15-7895-gb191e8bdecf881 Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed

[Bug middle-end/26163] [meta-bug] missed optimization in SPEC (2k17, 2k and 2k6 and 95)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163 Bug 26163 depends on bug 119270, which changed state. Bug 119270 Summary: [15 Regression] 5% slowdown of 507.cactuBSSN_r on Intel Ice Lake https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119270 What|Removed |Added

[Bug target/119270] [15 Regression] 5% slowdown of 507.cactuBSSN_r on Intel Ice Lake

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119270 Filip Kastl changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/119411] [15 Regression] 5% slowdown of 505.mcf_r on Aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119411 Filip Kastl changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |15.0

[Bug target/119413] New: [15 Regression] 11% slowdown (but only 3% regression against GGC 14) of 507.cactuBSSN_r on Aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119413 Bug ID: 119413 Summary: [15 Regression] 11% slowdown (but only 3% regression against GGC 14) of 507.cactuBSSN_r on Aarch64 Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/119412] New: 7% slowdown of 482.sphinx3 on Aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119412 Bug ID: 119412 Summary: 7% slowdown of 482.sphinx3 on Aarch64 Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization, needs-bisection Severity: nor

[Bug target/119411] [15 Regression] 5% slowdown of 505.mcf_r on Aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119411 --- Comment #1 from Filip Kastl --- > here there should have been "GCC 14" inserted into my bugreporting template :D

[Bug target/119411] New: [15 Regression] 5% slowdown of 505.mcf_r on Aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119411 Bug ID: 119411 Summary: [15 Regression] 5% slowdown of 505.mcf_r on Aarch64 Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization, needs-bisection

[Bug target/119413] [15 Regression] 11% slowdown (but only 3% regression against GGC 14) of 507.cactuBSSN_r on Aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119413 Filip Kastl changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |15.0

[Bug target/119410] New: 5% slowdown of 510.parest_r on Intel Ice Lake

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119410 Bug ID: 119410 Summary: 5% slowdown of 510.parest_r on Intel Ice Lake Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/119389] [15 Regression] tree FRE very slow when dealing with big switch statements since r15-8050-g6470b4d749a0b9

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119389 Filip Kastl changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[15 Regression] tree FRE|[15 Regression] tree FRE

[Bug tree-optimization/119389] [15 Regression] tree FRE very slow when dealing with big switch statements

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119389 --- Comment #1 from Filip Kastl --- This is how it looks on r15-6120-g56946c801a7cf3a831a11870b7e11ba08bf9bd87 > gcc bugreport.c -O1 -c -ftime-report Time variable wall GGC phase setup

[Bug tree-optimization/119389] New: [15 Regression] tree FRE very slow when dealing with big switch statements

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119389 Bug ID: 119389 Summary: [15 Regression] tree FRE very slow when dealing with big switch statements Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: com

[Bug target/119055] [15 Regression] 5-8% slowdown of 456.hmmer since r15-7605-gc5752c1f01316a

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119055 --- Comment #2 from Filip Kastl --- It looks like this benchmark is roughly at the same time as it was before. I'll close this if there are no objections.

[Bug target/116763] [15 Regression] 14-19% slowdown of 436.cactusADM on aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116763 --- Comment #2 from Filip Kastl --- Indeed. If we look at these comparisons https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.5=596.100.0&plot.6=755.100.0&plot.7=868.100.0&plot.8=1032.100.0&plot.9=586.100.0&; https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_d

[Bug target/114412] [14/15 Regression] 7% slowdown of 436.cactusADM on aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114412 --- Comment #9 from Filip Kastl --- If we look at these comparisons https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.5=596.100.0&plot.6=755.100.0&plot.7=868.100.0&plot.8=1032.100.0&plot.9=586.100.0 we see that we are now even faster than

[Bug target/118959] [15 Regression] 5-14% slowdown of 400.perlbench since r15-7400-gd3ff498c478ace

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118959 --- Comment #11 from Filip Kastl --- And btw there is also this slowdown https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.0=1101.10.0 which is 20%! But I didn't manage to replicate this on another Zen4 machine. So it probably doesn't m

[Bug target/118959] [15 Regression] 5-14% slowdown of 400.perlbench since r15-7400-gd3ff498c478ace

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118959 --- Comment #10 from Filip Kastl --- Ok, so these two benchmark configurations are back to their original speed: https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.0=465.10.0 https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.0=993.10.0

[Bug middle-end/26163] [meta-bug] missed optimization in SPEC (2k17, 2k and 2k6 and 95)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163 Bug 26163 depends on bug 119269, which changed state. Bug 119269 Summary: [15 Regression] 6-22% slowdown of 433.milc on Aarch64 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119269 What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug target/119269] [15 Regression] 6-22% slowdown of 433.milc on Aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119269 Filip Kastl changed: What|Removed |Added Status|SUSPENDED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/119285] [15 Regression] 5% slowdown of 519.lbm_r on Zen2 and Zen4 since r15-7932-ge355fe414aa3aa

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119285 Filip Kastl changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |15.0

[Bug rtl-optimization/119285] New: [15 Regression] 5% slowdown of 519.lbm_r on Zen2 and Zen4 since r15-7932-ge355fe414aa3aa

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119285 Bug ID: 119285 Summary: [15 Regression] 5% slowdown of 519.lbm_r on Zen2 and Zen4 since r15-7932-ge355fe414aa3aa Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/119269] [15 Regression] 6-22% slowdown of 433.milc on Aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119269 Filip Kastl changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2025-03-13 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug target/119270] [15 Regression] 5% slowdown of 507.cactuBSSN_r on Intel Ice Lake

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119270 Filip Kastl changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |15.0

[Bug target/119270] New: [15 Regression] 5% slowdown of 507.cactuBSSN_r on Intel Ice Lake

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119270 Bug ID: 119270 Summary: [15 Regression] 5% slowdown of 507.cactuBSSN_r on Intel Ice Lake Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimi

[Bug target/119269] [15 Regression] 6-22% slowdown of 433.milc on Aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119269 Filip Kastl changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |15.0

[Bug target/119269] New: [15 Regression] 6-22% slowdown of 433.milc on Aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119269 Bug ID: 119269 Summary: [15 Regression] 6-22% slowdown of 433.milc on Aarch64 Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: norm

[Bug target/118966] [15 Regression] 6% slowdown of 464.h264ref on Aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118966 --- Comment #4 from Filip Kastl --- Yeah, it looks like this is fixed. I'll wait for the automated benchmark to reproduce the speedup and then I'll close this PR.

[Bug target/115118] [15 Regression] 5-13% slowdown of 470.lbm on zen4 since r15-327-gf4b86ab09dfe25

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115118 --- Comment #5 from Filip Kastl --- Btw I also ran into 5% -Ofast -march=native -flto *speedup* on a Zen5 machine. But that still doesn't offset the 13% that the graph shows.

[Bug target/115118] [15 Regression] 5-13% slowdown of 470.lbm on zen4 since r15-327-gf4b86ab09dfe25

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115118 Filip Kastl changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[15 Regression] 5-13% |[15 Regression] 5-13% |

[Bug target/119159] [15 Regression] 6% slowdown of 520.omnetpp_r on aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119159 --- Comment #1 from Filip Kastl --- >From the graph it looks like the slowdown is gone. The benchmark exec time is at its previous value. I'm gonna wait for the automated benchmark to run again and confirm this and then I'll close this PR.

[Bug target/119168] [15 Regression] 5% 477.dealII slowdown since r15-7605-gc5752c1f01316a

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119168 --- Comment #2 from Filip Kastl --- I have seen noisier, but yeah. And 5% isn't *that* much and the benchmark got a bit better (as I wrote). Maybe we could mark this as WONTFIX. I'll probably do it if nobody becomes interested in this.

[Bug rtl-optimization/119168] New: [15 Regression] 5% 477.dealII slowdown since r15-7605-gc5752c1f01316a

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119168 Bug ID: 119168 Summary: [15 Regression] 5% 477.dealII slowdown since r15-7605-gc5752c1f01316a Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-o

[Bug rtl-optimization/119168] [15 Regression] 5% 477.dealII slowdown since r15-7605-gc5752c1f01316a

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119168 Filip Kastl changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |15.0

[Bug target/119159] [15 Regression] 6% slowdown of 520.omnetpp_r on aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119159 Filip Kastl changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |15.0

[Bug target/119159] New: [15 Regression] 6% slowdown of 520.omnetpp_r on aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119159 Bug ID: 119159 Summary: [15 Regression] 6% slowdown of 520.omnetpp_r on aarch64 Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization

[Bug target/118957] [15 Regression] 5-9% slowdown of 511.povray_r and 453.povray since r15-7400-gd3ff498c478ace

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118957 --- Comment #6 from Filip Kastl --- I've measured this again. I used -O2 -march=generic -flto PGO on an AMD Zen4 machine. Between r15-7400-gd3ff498c478ace r15-7852-ge836d80374aa03 the slowdown disappears. So, as with pr118959, I think the i

[Bug target/118959] [15 Regression] 5-14% slowdown of 400.perlbench since r15-7400-gd3ff498c478ace

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118959 --- Comment #9 from Filip Kastl --- Ah, I see. Thanks, I'll make a mental note of that.

[Bug target/118959] [15 Regression] 5-14% slowdown of 400.perlbench since r15-7400-gd3ff498c478ace

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118959 --- Comment #5 from Filip Kastl --- I measured (-O2 -march=native -flto on an AMD Zen3 machine) r15-7400-gd3ff498c478ace and r15-7852-ge836d80374aa03 and there is an 11% speedup which means we're back to the execution time before r15-7400-gd3ff4

[Bug tree-optimization/117919] [14/15 Regression] ICE: in propagate, at gimple-ssa-sccopy.cc:625 with -O -fno-tree-forwprop -fnon-call-exceptions --param=early-inlining-insns=192

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117919 Filip Kastl changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/117919] [14/15 Regression] ICE: in propagate, at gimple-ssa-sccopy.cc:625 with -O -fno-tree-forwprop -fnon-call-exceptions --param=early-inlining-insns=192

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117919 --- Comment #4 from Filip Kastl --- Ok, figured it out and posted a fix to the mailing list https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-February/676649.html

[Bug rtl-optimization/119055] [15 Regression] 5-8% slowdown of 456.hmmer since r15-7605-gc5752c1f01316a

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119055 Filip Kastl changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |15.0

[Bug rtl-optimization/119055] New: [15 Regression] 5-8% slowdown of 456.hmmer since r15-7605-gc5752c1f01316a

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119055 Bug ID: 119055 Summary: [15 Regression] 5-8% slowdown of 456.hmmer since r15-7605-gc5752c1f01316a Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: miss

[Bug tree-optimization/119044] 5-16% slowdown of 436.cactusADM since r15-7665-gee30e2586a3142

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119044 Filip Kastl changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|5-16% slowdown of |5-16% slowdown of |436.

[Bug tree-optimization/119044] New: 5-16% slowdown of 436.cactusADM since r15-7661-g8293b9e40f12e9

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119044 Bug ID: 119044 Summary: 5-16% slowdown of 436.cactusADM since r15-7661-g8293b9e40f12e9 Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimiza

[Bug tree-optimization/117919] [14/15 Regression] ICE: in propagate, at gimple-ssa-sccopy.cc:625 with -O -fno-tree-forwprop -fnon-call-exceptions --param=early-inlining-insns=192

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117919 --- Comment #3 from Filip Kastl --- I found that arguments of the PHI get removed because its whole basic block gets removed. Actually, basic blocks 10-13 get removed. This happens in a call to 'replace_uses_by' function. I think that EH edge

[Bug target/118967] 5% slowdown of 473.astar on AMD Zen3 since r15-7400-gd3ff498c478ace

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118967 Filip Kastl changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |15.0

[Bug target/118967] New: 5% slowdown of 473.astar on AMD Zen3 since r15-7400-gd3ff498c478ace

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118967 Bug ID: 118967 Summary: 5% slowdown of 473.astar on AMD Zen3 since r15-7400-gd3ff498c478ace Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-opt

[Bug target/118966] [15 Regression] 6% slowdown of 464.h264ref on Aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118966 --- Comment #1 from Filip Kastl --- I've recently reported some slowdowns related to r15-7400. Maybe that commit caused this slowdown too?

[Bug target/118966] [15 Regression] 6% slowdown of 464.h264ref on Aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118966 Filip Kastl changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |15.0 Host|x86_64-linux

[Bug target/118966] New: [15 Regression] 6% slowdown of 464.h264ref on Aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118966 Bug ID: 118966 Summary: [15 Regression] 6% slowdown of 464.h264ref on Aarch64 Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: norm

[Bug target/118959] [15 Regression] 5-14% slowdown of 400.perlbench since r15-7400-gd3ff498c478ace

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118959 Filip Kastl changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hjl at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug target/118957] [15 Regression] 5-9% slowdown of 511.povray_r and 453.povray since r15-7400-gd3ff498c478ace

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118957 Filip Kastl changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[15 Regression] 5-9%|[15 Regression] 5-9% |s

[Bug target/118957] [15 Regression] 5-9% slowdown of 511.povray_r and 453.povray

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118957 --- Comment #3 from Filip Kastl --- > this isn't a regression Huh, I apparently got confused. The graph shows that this *is* a regression. Thanks, richi, for fixing the bug title.

[Bug tree-optimization/118959] [15 Regression] 5-14% slowdown of 400.perlbench

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118959 Filip Kastl changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |15.0

[Bug tree-optimization/118959] New: [15 Regression] 5-14% slowdown of 400.perlbench

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118959 Bug ID: 118959 Summary: [15 Regression] 5-14% slowdown of 400.perlbench Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/118957] 5-9% slowdown of 511.povray_r and 453.povray

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118957 Filip Kastl changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|5-9% slowdown of|5-9% slowdown of |511.p

[Bug target/118957] New: 5-9% slowdown of 511.povray_r and 453.povray on x86_64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118957 Bug ID: 118957 Summary: 5-9% slowdown of 511.povray_r and 453.povray on x86_64 Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: nor

[Bug target/118957] 5-9% slowdown of 511.povray_r and 453.povray on x86_64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118957 Filip Kastl changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |15.0

[Bug other/118919] New: asan instrumented gcc: heap-use-after free in gcc/diagnostic-format-sarif.cc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118919 Bug ID: 118919 Summary: asan instrumented gcc: heap-use-after free in gcc/diagnostic-format-sarif.cc Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: S

[Bug target/116078] [15 Regression] 10-12% slowdown of 436.cactusADM on AMD Zen2 since r15-2187-g838999bb23303e

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116078 --- Comment #10 from Filip Kastl --- If you say that there's no mistake in the patch that could cause the slowdown, I believe you. After all, you understand the patch and I don't. Sorry I didn't make that clear earlier :). However, I guess it

[Bug target/116078] [15 Regression] 10-12% slowdown of 436.cactusADM on AMD Zen2 since r15-2187-g838999bb23303e

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116078 --- Comment #8 from Filip Kastl --- Hmm, reverting the commit in question on the current trunk to see if it still causes a slowdown doesn't work.

[Bug target/117270] [15 Regression] 9% exec time slowdown of 538.imagick_r on aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117270 --- Comment #6 from Filip Kastl --- Are you sure this is fixed? On our machine the slowdown didn't go away. See the graph https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.0=585.507.0. Maybe the weird codegen wasn't the cause of the slow

[Bug tree-optimization/118353] Implement greedy algorithm for switch jump table cluster finding

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118353 --- Comment #4 from Filip Kastl --- Huh. Then either a) We spend a lot of time in the jump table finding algorithm. That would mean that there are large switch statements in GCC code specific for those architectures. Btw, those switch statem

[Bug tree-optimization/118032] [15 regression] Bootstrap slowdown for risc-v

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118032 --- Comment #36 from Filip Kastl --- (In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #35) > Shall we close this bug or keep it open for implementing greedy switch > clustering for jump tables as suggested in comment #29 ? I think that it would be bette

[Bug tree-optimization/118353] New: Implement greedy algorithm for switch jump table cluster finding

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118353 Bug ID: 118353 Summary: Implement greedy algorithm for switch jump table cluster finding Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/118250] missed optimization in multiple integer comparisons (like errno tests)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118250 --- Comment #3 from Filip Kastl --- With the modification I plan for Stage 1 the DP alg will be as powerful as the greedy alg here. By LLVM code being better I suppose you mean this lower bound check: cmp eax, 1 jle .L4

[Bug tree-optimization/118032] [15 regression] Bootstrap slowdown for risc-v

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118032 --- Comment #30 from Filip Kastl --- (In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #28) > I haven't tried yet, but do you mean something like the following? > - /* Note: l + 1 is the number of cases of the switch. */ > - if (l + 1 > (unsigned) para

[Bug tree-optimization/118032] [15 regression] Bootstrap slowdown for risc-v

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118032 --- Comment #24 from Filip Kastl --- Thanks for the preprocessed file! I've looked at -ftime-report to see if the extra time was spent in switch lowering and found out it is not! Apparently the change in behavior of switch lowering has an effe

[Bug tree-optimization/118032] [15 regression] Bootstrap slowdown for risc-v

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118032 --- Comment #20 from Filip Kastl --- Hm, I don't see any memory leak. And if this was about memory leak in the switch lowering pass I guess the issue would pop up on other architectures too and someone would notice that.

[Bug target/118125] [15 Regression] 7-16% slowdown of 510.parest_r on x86-64(-v3) since r15-6110-g92e0e0f8177530

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118125 Filip Kastl changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |15.0

[Bug target/118125] New: [15 Regression] 7-16% slowdown of 510.parest_r on x86-64(-v3) since r15-6110-g92e0e0f8177530

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118125 Bug ID: 118125 Summary: [15 Regression] 7-16% slowdown of 510.parest_r on x86-64(-v3) since r15-6110-g92e0e0f8177530 Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/118123] [15 Regression] Some vms crosscompilers don't build since r15-5823-g4ed189854eae2d

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118123 Filip Kastl changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |15.0

[Bug target/118123] New: [15 Regression] Some vms crosscompilers don't build since r15-5823-g4ed189854eae2d

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118123 Bug ID: 118123 Summary: [15 Regression] Some vms crosscompilers don't build since r15-5823-g4ed189854eae2d Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywo

[Bug tree-optimization/118032] [15 regression] Bootstrap slowdown for risc-v

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118032 --- Comment #19 from Filip Kastl --- (In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #17) > r15-6120-g56946c801a7cf3 is causing out-of-memory when compiling > insn-attrtab.cc in a cross riscv64 build on 32-bit x86. > > https://build.opensuse.org/packa

[Bug middle-end/117091] switch clustering takes extensive time with large switches even at -O0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117091 Filip Kastl changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|REOPENED

[Bug fortran/118059] [15 Regression] ubsan instrumented gcc: valid value for type 'expr_t' in gcc/fortran/trans-expr.cc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118059 Filip Kastl changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |15.0

[Bug fortran/118059] New: [15 Regression] ubsan instrumented gcc: valid value for type 'expr_t' in gcc/fortran/trans-expr.cc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118059 Bug ID: 118059 Summary: [15 Regression] ubsan instrumented gcc: valid value for type 'expr_t' in gcc/fortran/trans-expr.cc Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug middle-end/117091] switch clustering takes extensive time with large switches even at -O0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117091 --- Comment #23 from Filip Kastl --- (In reply to Sam James from comment #22) > Are we keeping this one open for the improvement mentioned in > https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/z1gdhpphod-5m...@fkdesktop.suse.cz/? I wanted to close this

[Bug middle-end/117352] [15 Regression] switch bit test conversion makes comparison code worse on aarch64 and x86_64 with APX due to not generating ccmp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117352 Filip Kastl changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/26854] Inordinate compile times on large routines

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26854 --- Comment #154 from Filip Kastl --- > I suggest you file a new bugreport for the regression. Ok, it is now pr117922

[Bug tree-optimization/117922] New: [15 Regression] 1000% compilation time slow down on the testcase from pr26854

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117922 Bug ID: 117922 Summary: [15 Regression] 1000% compilation time slow down on the testcase from pr26854 Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords:

[Bug tree-optimization/26854] Inordinate compile times on large routines

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26854 Filip Kastl changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #152

[Bug tree-optimization/117919] [14/15 Regression] ICE: in propagate, at gimple-ssa-sccopy.cc:625 with -O -fno-tree-forwprop -fnon-call-exceptions --param=early-inlining-insns=192

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117919 Filip Kastl changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pheeck at gcc dot gnu.org --- Com

[Bug tree-optimization/117830] [15 Regression] Miscompilation of 464.h264ref at -O2 -march=generic since r15-5563-g1c4d39ada33d36

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117830 Filip Kastl changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[15 Regression] |[15 Regression] |Miscom

[Bug tree-optimization/117830] [15 Regression] Miscompilation of 464.h264ref at -O2 -march=generic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117830 --- Comment #2 from Filip Kastl --- I just re-checked and it definitely *is* on current trunk.

[Bug tree-optimization/117830] [15 Regression] Miscompilation of 464.h264ref at -O2 -march=generic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117830 --- Comment #1 from Filip Kastl --- Actually, let me recheck that this really still happens on current trunk. I may have made a mistake.

[Bug tree-optimization/117830] New: [14 Regression] Miscompilation of 464.h264ref at -O2 -march=generic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117830 Bug ID: 117830 Summary: [14 Regression] Miscompilation of 464.h264ref at -O2 -march=generic Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs-bise

[Bug middle-end/117352] [15 Regression] switch bit test conversion makes comparison code worse on aarch64 and x86_64 with APX due to not generating ccmp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117352 --- Comment #4 from Filip Kastl --- It took me longer than I expected but I've submitted the patch. https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-November/668911.html

  1   2   3   >