From: Joaquin M López Muñoz (joaquinlopezmunoz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2025-06-09 11:06:46
El 09/06/2025 a las 12:39, Ivan Matek escribió:
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2025 at 10:31 AM Joaquin M López Muñoz via Boost
> <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> I'll use -native as you suggest. As for the difference between the
> original
> hash production scheme and the one proposed by Kostas (cells marked
> with *), numbers are not very conclusive, but looks like Kostas's
> approach
> incurs a slight degradation in execution time. I hope we can see
> this more
> clearly with the upcoming GHA benchmarks on dedicated machines.
>
>
> btw one more thing that I noticed, but did not investigate in detail:
> gcc 14 numbers are much much worse than clang 20 on my machine, but
> just for some values in tables, while others are super close.
> I would not bother you for tiny performance difference, but this is huge.
>
> At first I thought it is just I am doing something wrong, i.e. number
> of elements, but other numbers match closely.
> I do not know nice way to show you ratio of numbers from 2 HTML
> documents, but so you can search for
> 13.71 and 13.64 in result_1M_num_release_withoutpragma_gcc_run0.html ,
> you will see the slow values.
>
> This is not one off discrepancy, i.e. on multiple runs I get large
> difference although it does fluctuate a bit.
I see... well, who knows. FWIW I run the test locally with GCC 13.2 on
MSYS2 and these
anomalies don't show up. It may be a codegen issue, if you're keen on
investigating this
further try reducing the number of filter configurations being tested
(for instance,
remove all rows except #3 and #4).
Joaquin M Lopez Munoz