This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: [RFC] Remove -freorder-blocks-and-partition

From: Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google dot com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <bonzini at gnu dot org>
Cc: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 09:28:28 -0700
Subject: Re: [RFC] Remove -freorder-blocks-and-partition
References: <4E25F810.6050904@redhat.com> <CAAkRFZJHvze3gyd6xxLV3KVeDsgfacA-AV-gL6TkvOFYey4f=g@mail.gmail.com> <4E2D4425.9040104@gnu.org>

On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 3:23 AM, Paolo Bonzini <bonzini@gnu.org> wrote:
> On 07/25/2011 06:42 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>>
>> FYI ?the performance impact of this option with SPEC06 (built with
>> google_46 compiler and measured on a core2 box). ?The base line number
>> is FDO, and ref number is FDO + reorder_with_partitioning.
>>
>> xalancbmk improves> ?3.5%
>> perlbench improves> ?1.5%
>> dealII and bzip2 degrades about 1.4%.
>>
>> Note the partitioning scheme is not tuned at all -- there is not even
>> a tunable parameter to play with.
>
> Did you check what is pushed down to the cold section in these cases?

I have not done any analysis on them .

David
>
> Paolo
>

References:
- [RFC] Remove -freorder-blocks-and-partition
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: [RFC] Remove -freorder-blocks-and-partition
  - From: Xinliang David Li
- Re: [RFC] Remove -freorder-blocks-and-partition
  - From: Paolo Bonzini

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