Ok, thanks. Will do, with appropriate credit. =) Teresa On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Steven Bosscher <stevenb....@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Teresa, > > It seems to me that it's better if you commit it along with your set > of fixes. My patch doesn't fix any bugs, it just exposes them :-) > > Ciao! > Steven > > > > On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 9:09 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohn...@google.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Steven, >> >> I've spent this week trying to clean up all the issues exposed by this new >> verification patch. Some of the issues I described in the email thread on my >> related patch (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-11/msg00287.html) and >> earlier in this thread. It also exposed more issues of the type described in >> the last message regarding my patch (the link I included here), where >> transformations were being applied but the partitions not being correctly >> fixed up. Things look clean now across SPEC2006 int C benchmarks at peak, >> gcc regression tests and our internal benchmarks. I need to update from >> head, retest and clean things up though before sending the new patch. But do >> you want to go ahead and commit this patch? I guess it should be fine to >> commit asynchronously with mine since -freorder-blocks-and-partition is off >> by default and not working anyway. I assume it can still go in since it was >> proposed already and is related to some outstanding bugs? >> >> Thanks, >> Teresa >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohn...@google.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Christophe Lyon >>> <christophe.l...@st.com> wrote: >>> > On 30.10.2012 17:59, Teresa Johnson wrote: >>> >> >>> >> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Steven Bosscher <stevenb....@gmail.com> >>> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> >>> >>> Hot/cold partitioning is apparently a hot topic all of a sudden, which >>> >>> is a good thing of course, because it's in need of some TLC. >>> >>> >>> >>> The attached patch adds another check the RTL cfg checking >>> >>> (verify_flow_info) for the partitioning: A hot block can never be >>> >>> dominated by a cold block (because the dominated block must also be >>> >>> cold). This trips in PR55121. >>> >>> >>> >>> I haven't tested this with any profiling tests, but it's bound to >>> >>> break things. From my POV, whatever gets broken by this patch was >>> >>> already broken to begin with :-) If you're in CC, it's because I >>> >>> hope you can help test this patch. >>> >> >>> >> I will try testing your patch on top of mine with our fdo benchmarks. >>> >> For the others on the cc list, you may need to include my patch as >>> >> well for testing. Without it, -freorder-blocks-and-partition was DOA >>> >> for me. For my patch, see >>> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg02692.html >>> >> >>> >> Teresa >>> >> >>> > I have tried Steven's patch an indeed it reported numerous errors while >>> > compiling spec2k. >>> > >>> > I tried Teresa's patch too, but it changed nothing in my tests. The >>> > patches >>> > already posted by Matt are still necessary and Teresa's patch does not >>> > improve my tests. >>> >>> With checking enabled I am seeing additional failures that my fixes >>> are not addressing. Looking into those now. >>> Can someone point me to Matt's patches? Is that this one: >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-09/msg00274.html >>> or are there others? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Teresa >>> >>> > >>> > I am out of office at the moment, so it's a little bit inconvenient to >>> > investigate deeper the reasons for all the errors reported by Steven's >>> > patch. Anyway it looks like it's really needed :) >>> > I also noticed that some compilations failed with an ICE in calc_dfs_tree >>> > at >>> > dominance.c:395. >>> > >>> > >>> > Christophe. >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohn...@google.com | 408-460-2413 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohn...@google.com | 408-460-2413 >>
-- Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohn...@google.com | 408-460-2413
