This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [google] LIPO regression tests and bug fixes (issue4444076)
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz> wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 2:21 AM, Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz> wrote:
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> > It seems that majority of testcases are independent of lipo. We could probably
>> >> > enjoy more of testing on mainline, so could you please take those working on
>> >> > mainline and make mainline patch and let me know what of the tests are not working
>> >> > there?
>> >>
>> >> Actually those test cases are cloned from tree-prof directory into the
>> >> lipo sub-directory. The difference is that lipo.exp file passes
>> >> additional -fripa flag. ?The missing tests for LIPO are ones with
>> >> multiple source with non trivial module group testing -- I have not
>> >> added those yet.
>> >
>> > Hmm, the tests looked familiar so I wondered how redundant they are ;)
>> > Well, any tests that you do have for PDO and are not in mainlie are welcome.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > We probably ought to fix the pass name... We already have "ipa-profile" for profile
>> >> > propagation. ?What about "gcov", unless we could come with something better?
>> >>
>> >> Yes -- tree_profile_ipa and ipa_profile confuses many people.
>> >
>> > If we won't get better idea, I would go with gcov.
>>
>> Maybe it is better to change ipa-profile to something like
>> ipa_freq_prop. ? Gcov is the name for coverage --- though it is
>> related to profiling and FDO, and it can so be confusing.
>
> Well, pass_ipa_profile is at IPA level what pass_profile does at tree level,
> so we would need to rename both. ?We could go with something like
> guess_profile as opposed to read profile, unless we come with anything better.
> gcov originales from coverage, indeed, but it is sort of used for the whole
> profiling/feedback infrastructure.
> I dunno what is better, both variants are fine with me. ?Do we need to use _ instead
> of - in pass names? ?I quite dislike the -fdump-ipa-profile_estimate naming, so
> I am usually trying to stick with one word pass names for this reason...
>
How about change "tree_profile_ipa" to "tree-profile" and
"ipa-profile" to "profile-estimate" -- basically drop the ipa in the
name. There are also many other passes using '_' though. Can tree
level pass_profile's name also be changed to 'profile-estimate'? Their
dump names won't collide.
Thanks,
David
> Honza
>>
>> David
>>
>> >
>> > Honza
>> >
>