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


Hi,

> The attached patch should fix the problem -- it reverts a small part
> of the last patch that is needed for fixing sixtrack performance
> regression caused by wrong iv-use costs because address offset range
> is conservatively computed. I will revert the change first and
> investigate better fix (Suggestions are welcome).
> 
> Ok for checkin (after testing is done)?

OK,

Zdenek

> Thanks,
> 
> David
> 
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 8:50 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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
> >>
> >
> > This also caused:
> >
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45121
> >
> >
> > --
> > H.J.
> >




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