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: [Patch,tree-optimization]: Add new path Splitting pass on tree ssa representation

From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
To: Ajit Kumar Agarwal <ajit dot kumar dot agarwal at xilinx dot com>, Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Vinod Kathail <vinodk at xilinx dot com>, Shail Aditya Gupta <shailadi at xilinx dot com>, Vidhumouli Hunsigida <vidhum at xilinx dot com>, Nagaraju Mekala <nmekala at xilinx dot com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 23:32:50 -0700
Subject: Re: [Patch,tree-optimization]: Add new path Splitting pass on tree ssa representation
Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
References: <37378DC5BCD0EE48BA4B082E0B55DFAA41F3F56C at XAP-PVEXMBX02 dot xlnx dot xilinx dot com> <37378DC5BCD0EE48BA4B082E0B55DFAA4295ADCB at XAP-PVEXMBX02 dot xlnx dot xilinx dot com> <55D4F921 dot 2020708 at redhat dot com> <37378DC5BCD0EE48BA4B082E0B55DFAA4297704C at XAP-PVEXMBX02 dot xlnx dot xilinx dot com> <5643A732 dot 4040707 at redhat dot com> <CAFiYyc07fxKy=pxo4t81M8WVOx9PLnzmMthkbBm52wub93dErQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <5644C6CC dot 90203 at redhat dot com> <5644DB59 dot 9040809 at redhat dot com> <56450B62 dot 4090404 at redhat dot com> <CAFiYyc06=_w4+B0C1d8y0rgCmNCy7vvsFfdvCqstnh6t5zsqbA at mail dot gmail dot com> <56460F19 dot 5010009 at redhat dot com> <0B62FFB6-DF7A-4080-A655-3E51070E1DEE at gmail dot com> <564646AA dot 5030300 at redhat dot com> <564673DA dot 3020403 at redhat dot com> <CAFiYyc2WXOS5kJFeKPa0aqaWbHV-CnDeWJ98zRa5X=FbAZ2THw at mail dot gmail dot com> <5669DBCD dot 1060507 at redhat dot com> <37378DC5BCD0EE48BA4B082E0B55DFAA429D4950 at XAP-PVEXMBX02 dot xlnx dot xilinx dot com> <567A40E4 dot 1030508 at redhat dot com> <37378DC5BCD0EE48BA4B082E0B55DFAA429DED02 at XAP-PVEXMBX02 dot xlnx dot xilinx dot com>

On 01/04/2016 07:32 AM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote:



-----Original Message----- From: Jeff Law [mailto:law@redhat.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 12:06 PM To: Ajit Kumar Agarwal;
Richard Biener Cc: GCC Patches; Vinod Kathail; Shail Aditya Gupta;
Vidhumouli Hunsigida; Nagaraju Mekala Subject: Re:
[Patch,tree-optimization]: Add new path Splitting pass on tree ssa
representation

On 12/11/2015 02:11 AM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote:


Mibench/EEMBC benchmarks (Target Microblaze)

Automotive_qsort1(4.03%), Office_ispell(4.29%),
Office_stringsearch1(3.5%). Telecom_adpcm_d( 1.37%),
ospfv2_lite(1.35%).

I'm having a real tough time reproducing any of these results.
In fact, I'm having a tough time seeing cases where path
splitting even applies to the Mibench/EEMBC benchmarks
>>mentioned above.

In the very few cases where split-paths might apply, the net
resulting assembly code I get is the same with and without
split-paths.

How consistent are these results?


I am consistently getting the gains for office_ispell and
office_stringsearch1, telcom_adpcm_d. I ran it again today and we see
gains in the same bench mark tests with the split path changes.

What functions are being affected that in turn impact
performance?


For office_ispell: The function are Function "linit (linit,
funcdef_no=0, decl_uid=2535, cgraph_uid=0, symbol_order=2) for
lookup.c file". "Function checkfile (checkfile, funcdef_no=1,
decl_uid=2478, cgraph_uid=1, symbol_order=4)" " Function correct
(correct, funcdef_no=2, decl_uid=2503, cgraph_uid=2,
symbol_order=5)" " Function askmode (askmode, funcdef_no=24,
decl_uid=2464, cgraph_uid=24, symbol_order=27)" for correct.c file.

For office_stringsearch1: The function is Function "bmhi_search
(bmhi_search, funcdef_no=1, decl_uid=2178, cgraph_uid=1,
symbol_order=5)" for bmhisrch.c file.

Can you send me the pre-processed lookup.c, correct.c and bmhi_search.c?

I generated mine using x86 and that may be affecting my ability toreproduce your results on the microblaze target. Looking specificallyat bmhi_search.c and correct.c, I see they are going to be sensitive tothe target headers. If (for exmaple) they use FORTIFY_SOURCE or macrosfor toupper.

In the bmhi_search I'm looking at, I don't see any opportunities for thepath splitter to do anything. The CFG just doesn't have the rightshape. Again, that may be an artifact of how toupper is implemented inthe system header files -- hence my request for the cpp output on eachof the important files.


Jeff

Follow-Ups:
- RE: [Patch,tree-optimization]: Add new path Splitting pass on tree ssa representation
  - From: Ajit Kumar Agarwal

References:
- RE: [Patch,tree-optimization]: Add new path Splitting pass on tree ssa representation
  - From: Ajit Kumar Agarwal

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