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

[Ajit Kumar Agarwal]

Hello Jeff:

I am out on vacation till 3rd Jan 2016.
Is it okay If I respond on the below once I am back in office.

Thanks & Regards
Ajit

-----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?

What functions are being affected that in turn impact performance?

What options are you using to compile the benchmarks?  I'm trying with
-O2 -fsplit-paths and -O3 in my attempts to trigger the transformation so that I can look more closely at possible heuristics.

Is this with the standard microblaze-elf target?  Or with some other target?

jeff