On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 7:14 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 8:50 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 6:07 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Xinliang David Li <davi...@google.com> >>> wrote: >>>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Pat Haugen <pthau...@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 >
This also caused: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48774 -- H.J.
