IVOPT improvement patch

[H.J. Lu]

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.