This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: IVOPT improvement patch


What is the build configuration?

Thanks,

David

On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 6:07 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Pat Haugen <pthaugen@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Sebatian for testing it out. I also asked Pat to help testing
>>>> the patch again on powerpc. I will first split off the unrelated
>>>> patches and submit them first (e.g, multiple exit loop handling etc).
>>>>
>>>
>>> There were 2 good improvements on PowerPC, the rest were pretty much a wash
>>> (< +/-2%):
>>>
>>> 410.bwaves ? ? ?10.0%
>>> 434.zeusmp ? ? ?6.6%
>>>
>>> One thing I did notice however is that comparing these results to the run I
>>> did back in May on an earlier version of the patch is that both
>>> improvements dropped. bwaves was 27% on that run and zeusmp was 8.4%. I
>>> don't have the old builds around, but could recreate if you're not aware of
>>> anything to explain the drop.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks. I will check in this version first and do some triaging on the
>> performance drop (with your help). ?One thing to be aware is that
>> r161844 was checked in during this period of time which might be
>> related, but not sure until further investigation -- the two stage
>> initial iv set computation introduced by the patch may not be needed
>> (if this patch is in).
>>
>
> Your checkin caused:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45119
>
> --
> H.J.
>


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]