[LLVMbugs] [Bug 16358] New: clang/llvm 3.3 produces much slower loops than gcc 4.7.2

bugzilla-daemon at llvm.org bugzilla-daemon at llvm.org
Tue Jun 18 05:08:49 PDT 2013


            Bug ID: 16358
           Summary: clang/llvm 3.3 produces much slower loops than gcc
           Product: clang
           Version: trunk
          Hardware: PC
                OS: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P
         Component: LLVM Codegen
          Assignee: unassignedclangbugs at nondot.org
          Reporter: conradsand.arma at gmail.com
                CC: llvmbugs at cs.uiuc.edu
    Classification: Unclassified

Created attachment 10696
  --> http://llvm.org/bugs/attachment.cgi?id=10696&action=edit

When using the Armadillo template matrix library (http://arma.sourceforge.net),
gcc 4.7.2 consistently produces faster code than clang/llvm 3.3.

I've attached a simple program which demonstrates the problem. Below is a 
relevant extract:

// 'size' is specified on the command line

mat A; A.randu(size,size);
mat B; B.randu(size,size);
mat C; C.zeros(size,size);

C = 0.1*A + 0.2*B;

The inner loop stemming from line "C = 0.1*A + 0.2*B" is converted by gcc 4.7.2
(using -O3) to the following x86-64 assembly code:

    movapd    (%rcx,%rax), %xmm0
    addl    $1, %esi
    movapd    (%rdi,%rax), %xmm3
    mulpd    %xmm2, %xmm0
    mulpd    %xmm1, %xmm3
    addpd    %xmm3, %xmm0
    movapd    %xmm0, (%rdx,%rax)
    addq    $16, %rax
    cmpl    %r9d, %esi
    jb    .L132

In contrast, clang/llvm 3.3 (also using -O3) converts the inner loop to this

    leal    -1(%rcx), %ebp
    movsd    .LCPI0_1(%rip), %xmm0
    movsd    (%rsi,%rbp,8), %xmm3
    mulsd    %xmm0, %xmm3
    movsd    .LCPI0_2(%rip), %xmm1
    movsd    (%rdi,%rbp,8), %xmm2
    mulsd    %xmm1, %xmm2
    addsd    %xmm3, %xmm2
    movl    %ecx, %ecx
    mulsd    (%rsi,%rcx,8), %xmm0
    mulsd    (%rdi,%rcx,8), %xmm1
    movsd    %xmm2, (%rax,%rbp,8)
    addsd    %xmm0, %xmm1
    movsd    %xmm1, (%rax,%rcx,8)
    addl    $2, %ecx
    cmpl    %edx, %ecx
    jb    .LBB0_45

Even when using -O2, gcc still produces a more efficient loop.

Below are timing results for running the attached program on an Intel Core 2
Duo E8600 @ 3.33GHz, when compiled using various optimisation flags.  Each
instance was run via:
time ./addspeed 50 2000000
where 50 specifies the matrix size and 2000000 is the number of repetitions.

gcc 4.7.2
-Os: 6.265u
-O1: 6.275u
-O2: 5.134u
-O3: 4.282u

clang 3.3
-Os: 6.299u
-O1: 9.030u
-O2: 6.347u   
-O3: 6.295u

You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-bugs/attachments/20130618/57328da2/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-bugs mailing list