Hi Vladimir,
Firstly, thanks for looking into this.
> Analysis of 187.facerec problem was actually easier than applu one.
> It has one very hot (80%) function localmove::graphRoutines.f90 and
> there is only one hot loop in the function. Although the loop is
> pretty big because of inlining To
Vladimir Makarov wrote:
Luis Machado wrote:
Upon further investigation on facerec's regression, it looks like the
code generated by the IRA-enabled gcc has many more spills than the one
with a disabled IRA, twice or sometimes three times more.
I'm trying to reduce the testcase a bit further so
Luis Machado wrote:
Upon further investigation on facerec's regression, it looks like the
code generated by the IRA-enabled gcc has many more spills than the one
with a disabled IRA, twice or sometimes three times more.
I'm trying to reduce the testcase a bit further so it's simpler to
analyse.
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Luis Machado
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-09-08 at 09:47 -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
>> Jeff Law wrote:
>> > H.J. Lu wrote:
>> >> My understanding is PowerPC is quite sensitive to choice of register
>> >> as shown in PR 28690. IRA merge may make fixe
On Mon, 2008-09-08 at 09:47 -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> Jeff Law wrote:
> > H.J. Lu wrote:
> >> My understanding is PowerPC is quite sensitive to choice of register
> >> as shown in PR 28690. IRA merge may make fixes for PR 28690
> >> ineffective. There are a few small testcases in PR 28690. Y
Jeff Law wrote:
H.J. Lu wrote:
My understanding is PowerPC is quite sensitive to choice of register
as shown in PR 28690. IRA merge may make fixes for PR 28690
ineffective. There are a few small testcases in PR 28690. You can
check if those problems in PR 28690 come back due to IRA merge.
Also,
H.J. Lu wrote:
On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Luis Machado
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 2008-09-06 at 07:49 -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 7:05 AM, Luis Machado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 2008-09-05 at 10:34 -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Fri, S
On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Luis Machado
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2008-09-06 at 07:49 -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 7:05 AM, Luis Machado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Fri, 2008-09-05 at 10:34 -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 10:24 AM
On Sat, 2008-09-06 at 07:49 -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 7:05 AM, Luis Machado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2008-09-05 at 10:34 -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >> On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Vladimir Makarov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > H.J. Lu keeps
On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 7:05 AM, Luis Machado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2008-09-05 at 10:34 -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Vladimir Makarov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > H.J. Lu keeps ira-branch merge more fresh than trunk. But the lag is only
>>
>> I
On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 12:47 AM, Richard Sandiford
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "H.J. Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Vladimir Makarov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> 1-3 days usually because gcc community and RA reviewers are very responsive.
>>> So I don't see
On Fri, 2008-09-05 at 10:34 -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Vladimir Makarov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > H.J. Lu keeps ira-branch merge more fresh than trunk. But the lag is only
>
> I won't apply any non-IRA related patches to ira-merge branch so
> that you can g
"H.J. Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Vladimir Makarov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 1-3 days usually because gcc community and RA reviewers are very responsive.
>> So I don't see a big difference in using ira-merge and trunk. I'd only
>> recommend to apply patc
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Vladimir Makarov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> H.J. Lu keeps ira-branch merge more fresh than trunk. But the lag is only
I won't apply any non-IRA related patches to ira-merge branch so
that you can get a fair comparison for IRA without regressions
introduced by
Luis Machado wrote:
This is a Power6 4.7Ghz (altivec supported)
Great. Now I have an access to power6. So I am going to try it too.
What options (especially march or mtune) you are using? IRA is very
sensitive to correct times of ld/st/moves in machine description.
I'm currentl
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 8:01 AM, Luis Machado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-09-05 at 07:16 -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 6:59 AM, Luis Machado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Hi Vladimir,
>> >
>> > I was just going through some benchmarks on PPC and noticed that your
>>
On Fri, 2008-09-05 at 12:36 -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> Luis Machado wrote:
> > Hi Vladimir,
> >
> > I was just going through some benchmarks on PPC and noticed that your
> > patch from 08/26 (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2008-08/msg01152.html)
> > caused a significant regression on both face
On Fri, 2008-09-05 at 09:03 -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 8:01 AM, Luis Machado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-09-05 at 07:16 -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >> On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 6:59 AM, Luis Machado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > Hi Vladimir,
> >> >
> >> > I was jus
Luis Machado wrote:
Hi Vladimir,
I was just going through some benchmarks on PPC and noticed that your
patch from 08/26 (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2008-08/msg01152.html)
caused a significant regression on both facerec (~17%) and applu (~4%)
for 64-bit PPC.
There are other degradations that
On Fri, 2008-09-05 at 07:16 -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 6:59 AM, Luis Machado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi Vladimir,
> >
> > I was just going through some benchmarks on PPC and noticed that your
> > patch from 08/26 (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2008-08/msg01152.html)
> > c
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 6:59 AM, Luis Machado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Vladimir,
>
> I was just going through some benchmarks on PPC and noticed that your
> patch from 08/26 (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2008-08/msg01152.html)
> caused a significant regression on both facerec (~17%) and appl
Hi Vladimir,
I was just going through some benchmarks on PPC and noticed that your
patch from 08/26 (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2008-08/msg01152.html)
caused a significant regression on both facerec (~17%) and applu (~4%)
for 64-bit PPC.
There are other degradations that i'm still working on i
22 matches
Mail list logo
