On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 04:56:32PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 10:06:49AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > > > I've done 3 x86_64-linux and i686-linux bootstraps/regtests, each time > > > with the 3rd patch to gather statistics on number of successful ICF > > > function > > > merges, and once with no further patches, once with the first patch and > > > once with the second patch instead of the first. > > > > > > The numbers of successful ICF function merges across the 2 > > > bootstraps/regtests are > > > vanilla 175170 > > > first 168617 > > > second 168858 > > > So, the second patch causes slightly more successful ICF merges over the > > > first one, but only tiny bit, for the first patch it is ~3.75% fewer > > > ICF merges, for the second patch ~3.6% fewer ICF merges. > > > > > > Guess another option would be to somehow try to be conservative about such > > > cases, but for ICF that sounds really hard, how do we figure out that we > > > need to adjust something in the chosen candidate and what exactly in it. > > > And for SCCVN how to arrange to modify the chosen winner so that it is > > > conservatively ok for both the merged cases. > > > > I prefer the first patch. > > I know, the reason why I have tested the second patch at all was that at > first the 3.75% fewer merges looked like a big number to me and I wanted to > see if the second patch helps with that. It clearly does but almost in the > noise area. > > Honza, your thoughts on this?
Honza, I'd like to ping this. https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-February/676610.html Thanks Jakub
