Re: Agenda for tomorrow's call.

2012-07-24 Thread Ramana Radhakrishnan
Hi Steven,

Nice to hear from you.

On 23 July 2012 19:25, Steven Bosscher  wrote:
> Hello Ramana,
>
> For your PGO list:
>
> * please note that I've been working on PGO for switch code, and also
> for chains of if-statements with a common condition variable (with Tom
> de Vries)

Yes, that's what I alluded to in the call yesterday morning.

>
> * turning conditional execution off will not make a difference, your
> profile information will be exactly the same. Profile instrumentation
> happens very early in the pipe line (on purpose, PGO is more
> accurately "coverage guided optimization", not profiling in the
> prof/gprof/oprofile sense). And the parts of the CFG that have profile
> instrumentation cannot be if-converted anyway.


Indeed that's true of the generic if-conversion pass but in ARM state
in the ARM backend we have this bit of infrastructure that goes around
and looks for conditionalization oppurtunities. I'm not sure how that
plays with profile-generation. My guess it shouldn't harm in this
case, but there have been a number of times when I've looked at code
generated with profile-generation and noticed conditional execution on
ARM. That logic won't apply for Thumb2.


>
> * you can use the script "analyze_brprob" in contrib/ to measure the
> accuracy of the branch predictors. The script needs some TLC, fixing
> it is on my TODO list but let me know if linaro folks are going to
> take care of that. You'll find that the predictors are heavily tuned
> towards the original Opteron, I'm not aware of much tuning for other
> architectures.

We've not yet tuned the predictors for the variety of the
micro-architectures on ARM. That's not been on our TODO list .
>
> * The heuristics for profile-guided optimizations are also not tuned
> for arm. In the past we found that some params have more influence
> than others (the TRACER* parameters for example).
>

Ok good to know.

>
> What do you mean with "Only conditionalise those parts that benefit"?

Hmm I can't remember now. I'll have to dig up some notes to see what this was .
>
> Ciao!
> Steven

___
linaro-toolchain mailing list
linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain


Fwd: [cbuild] gcc-4.8~svn189808 armv7l failed

2012-07-24 Thread Michael Hope
FYI GCC trunk r189808 fails to build with a bootstrap comparison error:

Comparing stages 2 and 3
warning: gcc/cc1-checksum.o differs
warning: gcc/cc1plus-checksum.o differs
warning: gcc/cc1obj-checksum.o differs
warning: gcc/cc1objplus-checksum.o differs
Bootstrap comparison failure!
arm-linux-gnueabi/libgcc/unwind-arm.o differs
arm-linux-gnueabi/libgcc/unwind-arm_s.o differs

189575 was fine on hard float.  189745 is fine on softfp.

-- Michael

-- Forwarded message --
From: Linaro Toolchain Builder 
Date: 25 July 2012 15:59
Subject: [cbuild] gcc-4.8~svn189808 armv7l failed
To: "michael.hope+not...@linaro.org" 


ursa3 finished running job gcc-4.8~svn189808 on
armv7l-precise-cbuild348-ursa3-cortexa9hfr1.

The results are here:
 http://builds.linaro.org/toolchain/gcc-4.8~svn189808



This email is sent from a cbuild (https://launchpad.net/cbuild) based
bot which is administered by Michael Hope .

___
linaro-toolchain mailing list
linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain