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


On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com> wrote:
> Just to clarify -- this patch is not the cause for this regression, right?

That is correct.


H.J.
> David
>
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 7:14 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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
>>>
>>
>> This may also cause:
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45131
>>
>>
>> --
>> H.J.
>>
>



-- 
H.J.


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