The following patch can fix an ICE when compiling with LIPO. OK for google-4_9?
Thanks,
Dehao
Index: gcc/l-ipo.c
===
--- gcc/l-ipo.c (revision 225685)
+++ gcc/l-ipo.c (working copy)
@@ -731,6 +731,7 @@ lipo_cmp_type (tree t1, tree t2
. Any comments?
Bootstrapped and test on-going.
OK for trunk?
Thanks,
Dehao
ChangeLog:
2015-06-23 Dehao Chen
* opts.c(finish_options): Disable reorder_blocks_and_partition for DWARF2.
Index: opts.c
===
--- opts.c (revision 2
ok for google branch.
Dehao
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Cary Coutant wrote:
>>> @@ -21817,22 +21823,39 @@ out_subprog_directive (subprog_entry *su
>>> {
>>>tree decl = subprog->decl;
>>>tree decl_name = DECL_NAME (decl);
>>> - const char *name;
>>> + tree origin;
>>
>> Explicitly
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Cary Coutant wrote:
> This patch is for the google/gcc-4_9 branch.
>
> With this patch, we output an empty name for non-inlined functions,
> and change the -ftwo-level-all-subprogs option to override this
> behavior to output linkage names instead. The consumer can
ok.
Dehao
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Cary Coutant wrote:
> Minor changes to -ftwo-level-line-tables.
>
> This patch is for the google/gcc-4_9 branch.
>
> Originally, -ftwo-level-line-tables would output .subprog directives
> only for inlined subprograms, and not for non-inlined ones. This
The offset overflow warning would cause build fails when function's
start line is missing(0). Until the start line issues is fixed, we
will suppress this warning.
Testing on-going. OK for google-4_9?
Thanks,
Dehao
Index: gcc/auto-profile.c
===
patch is ok for google branch.
Dehao
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Cary Coutant wrote:
> Here's a very slightly revised patch, fixing a couple of bugs found
> during GDB testing.
>
> In out_logical_entry, I should pass along the value of is_stmt when
> creating a logical for the calling conte
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Cary Coutant wrote:
>>> > Not quite clear why we need block_table. This table is not gonna be
>>> > emitted. And we can easily get subprog_entry through block->block_num
>>>
>>> When final_scan_insn() calls dwarf2out_begin_block(), all it passes is
>>> a block numb
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Cary Coutant wrote:
>
> >> +static subprog_entry *
> >> +add_subprog_entry (tree decl, bool is_inlined)
> >> +{
> >> + subprog_entry **slot;
> >> + subprog_entry *entry;
> >> +
> >> + slot = subprog_table->find_slot_with_hash (decl, DECL_UID (decl),
> >> INSERT
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Cary Coutant wrote:
> Add -ftwo-level-line-tables and -gline-tables-only options.
>
> With -ftwo-level-line-tables, GCC will generate two-level line tables,
> which adds inline call information to the line tables, obviating the
> need to keep bulky debug info aroun
promote the
indirect call anyway.
Dehao
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> Does it paper over the real bug?
>
> David
>
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Dehao Chen wrote:
>> This patch fixes the bug for undefined symbol in AutoFDO build.
>>
ping...
Thanks,
Dehao
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Dehao Chen wrote:
> This patch updates ssa and inline summary in the correct location for AutoFDO.
>
> Bootstrapped and passed regression test. OK for trunk?
>
> Thanks,
> Dehao
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
This patch fixes the bug for undefined symbol in AutoFDO build.
Testing on going. OK for google-4_9 branch?
Thanks,
Dehao
Index: gcc/auto-profile.c
===
--- gcc/auto-profile.c (revision 218784)
+++ gcc/auto-profile.c (working copy)
@
. Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Contributed by Dehao Chen (de...@google.com)
This file is part of GCC.
@@ -18,19 +18,17 @@ You should have received a copy of the GNU General
along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see
<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>. */
-/* Read and annotate call
This patch updates ssa and inline summary in the correct location for AutoFDO.
Bootstrapped and passed regression test. OK for trunk?
Thanks,
Dehao
gcc/ChangeLog:
2014-11-18 Dehao Chen
* auto-profile.c (afdo_annotate_cfg): Invoke update_ssa in the right
place
rkaround needed for the mainline autofdo version too?
>
> -Andi
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Dehao Chen wrote:
>>> The patch was updated to ignore comdat einline tuning for AutoFDO.
>>> Performance testing is green.
(callee->decl)
+ else if (!flag_auto_profile && DECL_COMDAT (callee->decl)
&& growth <= PARAM_VALUE (PARAM_EARLY_INLINING_INSNS_COMDAT))
;
else if ((n = num_calls (callee)) != 0
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Dehao Chen wrote:
>
We do not do sophisticated recursive call detection in einline phase.
It only happens in ipa-inline phase.
Dehao
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Dehao Chen wrote:
>> IIRC, AutoFDO the actual iteration for AutoFDO is mostly &
this case, recomputing inline summary does not help because the
code was bloated in first einline phase.
Dehao
>
> David
>
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> Is there a need to have 10 iterations of early inline for autofdo?
>>
>> David
>>
&
In AutoFDO, we increase einline iterations. This could lead to
extensive code bloat if we have recursive calls like:
dtor() {
destroy(node);
}
destroy(node) {
destroy(left)
destroy(right)
}
In this case, the size growth will be around 8 which is smaller than
threshold (11). However, if we
The patch tested OK. And I think it's a trivial patch, and already
committed it to trunk.
About the perf parser. I'm syncing the toolchain to head which should
already have newer kernel support.
Thanks,
Dehao
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> Can someone pre-approve t
Looks like the perf data type is incompatible with quipper (perf data
parser). Can you send me the perf.data file so that I can take a look.
Thanks,
Dehao
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf
wrote:
> On 2014.10.21 at 13:53 -0700, Dehao Chen wrote:
>> Everything will be
non-Intel CPU. But you are
more than welcome to tune the propagation algorithm to get most out of
inaccurate instruction profile.
Cheers,
Dehao
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf
wrote:
> On 2014.10.20 at 14:21 -0700, Dehao Chen wrote:
>> >> +If @var{path} is sp
T_PASS (pass_ipa_auto_profile);
NEXT_PASS (pass_ipa_free_inline_summary);
NEXT_PASS (pass_ipa_tree_profile);
PUSH_INSERT_PASSES_WITHIN (pass_ipa_tree_profile)
Index: gcc/debug.h
===
--- gcc/debug.h (revision 215826)
+++ gcc/debug.h (working copy)
@@ -
--- gcc/Makefile.in (revision 215826)
+++ gcc/Makefile.in (working copy)
@@ -1153,6 +1153,7 @@ OBJS = \
alias.o \
alloc-pool.o \
auto-inc-dec.o \
+ auto-profile.o \
bb-reorder.o \
bitmap.o \
bt-load.o \
Index: gcc/common.opt
===
iang David Li wrote:
> Is it destroyed by value profile transformations? Can you move the
> dominance recomputing code closer to where it gets invalidated?
>
> David
>
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Dehao Chen wrote:
>> This patch recalculates dominance info before upda
This patch recalculates dominance info before update_ssa call in
AutoFDO. This fixes bug when dominance info is out-of-date and causes
segfaults during update_ssa.
Bootstrapped and regression test on-going.
OK for google-4_9 branch?
Thanks,
Dehao
Index: gcc/auto-profile.c
==
The new patch is attached. I used clang-format for format auto-profile.{c|h}
Thanks,
Dehao
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Dehao Chen wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 8:02 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>>> Index: gcc/cg
e another pass over the actual streaming logic that I find
> bit difficult
> to read, but I quite trust you it does the right thing ;)
>
> Honza
Index: gcc/debug.h
=======
--- gcc/debug.h (revision 215826)
+++ gcc/debug.h (working
>>
>> This will cause bzip2 performance to degrade 6%. I haven't had time to
>> triage the problem. Will investigate this later.
>
> Still I would preffer to make this by default
> flag_reorder_blocks_and_partition
> to false with auto_profile. We could do that incrementally, lets just drop
> thi
fined section attributes. Don't call it if either case
arises. */
return (flag_reorder_blocks_and_partition
- && optimize
+ && optimize && !flag_auto_profile
/* See gate_handle_reorder_blocks. We should not partition if
w
OK for google-4_8 and google-4_9. David and Teresa may have further comments.
Dehao
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 3:36 PM, Yi Yang wrote:
> This currently puts split sections together again in the specified
> section and breaks DWARF output. This patch disables the partitioning
> for such functions.
>
This patch replaces getline with fgets so that gcc builts fine in darwin.
Testing on going, ok for google-4_9 if test passes?
Thanks,
Dehao
Index: gcc/coverage.c
===
--- gcc/coverage.c (revision 212523)
+++ gcc/coverage.c (working c
0, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Yi Yang wrote:
>>> Done.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Dehao Chen wrote:
>>>> For get_locus_information, can you cal get_inline_stack and directly use
>>>> its
>>>> output to
an enough. I don't see a reason to intentionally drop precision
>>> though.
>>>
>>> Note that for the actual probability, the best way to store it is to
>>> store the edge count, since the probability is just
>>> edge_count/bb_count. But this cau
Let's use %d to replace %f (manual conversion, let's do xx%).
Dehao
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Yi Yang wrote:
> Fixed.
>
> Also, I spotted some warnings caused by me using "%lf"s in snprintf().
> I changed these to "%f" and tested.
>
>
>
You don't need extra space to store file name in locus_information_t.
Use pointer instead.
Dehao
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Yi Yang wrote:
>
> I refactored the code and added comments. A bug (prematurely breaking
> from a loop) was fixed during the refactoring.
>
> (My last mail was wrong
OK for google-4_8 and google-4_9
Thanks,
Dehao
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 3:09 PM, Yi Yang wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patch removes unnecessary edge probability calculations in
> afdo_propagate_circuit() that would eventually be overridden by
> afdo_calculate_branch_prob().
>
> This would pave the way f
k for Google/4_8?
>
> Teresa
>
> 2014-06-12 Teresa Johnson
> Dehao Chen
>
> Google ref b/15521327.
>
> * cgraphclones.c (cgraph_clone_edge): Use resolved node.
> * l-ipo.c (resolve_cgraph_node): Resolve to non
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Cary Coutant wrote:
>> This will increase c++ g1/g2 binary size a little. For all spec
>> cint2006 benchmarks, the binary size change is shown below.
>>
>> 400 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
>> 401 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
>> 403 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
>> 429 0.00% 0.00%
ping...
Dehao
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Dehao Chen wrote:
> This will increase c++ g1/g2 binary size a little. For all spec
> cint2006 benchmarks, the binary size change is shown below.
>
> 400 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
> 401 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
> 403 0.00% 0.00%
Just tried with Teresa's patch, the ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61384 is not resolved.
Dehao
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 06/02/14 10:17, Dehao Chen wrote:
>>
>> We need to rebuild frequency after vrp, otherwise the following
g on-going. OK for trunk if test pass?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Dehao
>>
>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>> 2014-06-02 Dehao Chen
>>
>> PR tree-optimization/61384
>> * tree-vrp.c (execute_vrp): rebuild frequency after vrp.
>>
>> gcc/te
This patch rebuilds frequency after vrp.
Bootstrapped and testing on-going. OK for trunk if test pass?
Thanks,
Dehao
gcc/ChangeLog:
2014-06-02 Dehao Chen
PR tree-optimization/61384
* tree-vrp.c (execute_vrp): rebuild frequency after vrp.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2014-06-02
Thanks for the suggestion. I actually want this function to be inlined
in ipa-inline phase, not einline phase.
Dehao
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 11:43 PM, Dehao Chen wrote:
>> Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-prof/merg
Chen wrote:
> As we are pushing AutoFDO patch upstream, is this patch OK for trunk?
>
> Thanks,
> Dehao
>
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Dehao Chen wrote:
>> After rerunning test, this will fail one gcc regression test. So I
>> updated the patch to make sure a
As we are pushing AutoFDO patch upstream, is this patch OK for trunk?
Thanks,
Dehao
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Dehao Chen wrote:
> After rerunning test, this will fail one gcc regression test. So I
> updated the patch to make sure all test will pass:
>
> Index: gcc
This patch updates the merged bb count only when they are in the same loop.
Bootstrapped and passed regression test.
Ok for trunk?
Thanks,
Dehao
gcc/ChangeLog:
2014-05-30 Dehao Chen
* tree-cfg.c (gimple_merge_blocks): Only reset count when BBs are in
the same loop.
gcc
This patch fixes LIPO ICE that an unresolved node escaped after lipo fixup.
testing on going. OK for google-4_9?
Thanks,
Dehao
Index: gcc/ipa.c
===
--- gcc/ipa.c (revision 210864)
+++ gcc/ipa.c (working copy)
@@ -39,6 +39,7 @@ along
If a loop's header count is less than iteration count, the iteration
estimation is apparently incorrect for this loop. Thus disable
unrolling of such loops.
Testing on going. OK for trunk if test pass?
Thanks,
Dehao
gcc/ChangeLog:
2014-05-21 Dehao Chen
* cfgl
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> I've updated the patch. Shall I move the check inside cgraph_clone_node?
>
> Thanks,
> I think it is OK as it is. I belive individual users should know what do to
> in such cases themselves.
> You may want to also check what ipa-cp is doing.
I've updated the patch. Shall I move the check inside cgraph_clone_node?
Thanks,
Dehao
Index: gcc/ipa-inline-transform.c
===
--- gcc/ipa-inline-transform.c (revision 210535)
+++ gcc/ipa-inline-transform.c (working copy)
@@ -183,8 +18
Do you mean adjusting bb->count? Because in
expand_call_inline(tree-inline.c), it will use bb->count to pass into
copy_body to calculate count_scale.
Thanks,
Dehao
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> In AutoFDO, a basic block's count can be much larger than it's actual
>> coun
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> > Is this patch ok for trunk? Bootstrapped and regression test on-going.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Dehao
> >
> > 2014-05-16 Dehao Chen
> >
> > * tree-inline.c (initialize_cfun
Is this patch ok for trunk? Bootstrapped and regression test on-going.
Thanks,
Dehao
2014-05-16 Dehao Chen
* tree-inline.c (initialize_cfun): Ensure count_scale is no larger
than REG_BR_PROB_BASE.
(copy_cfg_body): Likewise.
Index: gcc/tree-inline.c
This patch makes sure max count is used when merging two basic blocks.
Bootstrapped and testing on-going.
OK for trunk if test is ok?
Thanks,
Dehao
gcc/ChangeLog:
2014-05-16 Dehao Chen
* tree-cfg.c (gimple_merge_blocks): Updates bb count with max count.
Index: gcc/tree-cfg.c
This patch uses optimize_function_for_size_p to replace old
optimize_size check in regs.h and ira-int.h to make it consistent.
Bootstrapped and testing on-going.
OK for trunk if test passes?
Thanks,
Dehao
gcc/ChangeLog:
2014-05-16 Dehao Chen
* ira-int.h (REG_FREQ_FROM_EDGE_FREQ
trunk if test pass?
Thanks,
Dehao
gcc/ChangeLog:
2014-05-16 Dehao Chen
* cfghooks.c (make_forwarder_block): Use direct computation to
get fall-through edge's count and frequency.
Index: gcc/cfghooks.c
=
Attached patch passes regression tests and benchmark test. OK for google-4_9?
Thanks,
Dehao
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Dehao Chen wrote:
> As discussed offline, this is actually due to missing parts of the
> previous patch (some changes does not appear in the change log of
>
As discussed offline, this is actually due to missing parts of the
previous patch (some changes does not appear in the change log of
r199154). I've updated the patch to include those missing pieces.
Testing on going.
Dehao
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Cary Coutant wrote:
>> The problem is t
The problem is that linemap_location_from_macro_expansion_p will
always return true if locus has discriminator. And in linemap_lookup,
this will lead to call linemap_macro_map_lookup, in which there is an
assertion:
linemap_assert (line >= LINEMAPS_MACRO_LOWEST_LOCATION (set));
However, line is a
The previous checkin will break build for most application:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc/branches/google/gcc-4_9/gcc/?view=log
This patch fixes the regression by updating highest_location.
Testing on-going,
OK for google-4_9 branch?
Thanks,
Dehao
Index: gcc/input.c
=
Yes, this patch is a combination of all these patches. Some of them
are already in trunk.
Dehao
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Cary Coutant wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Dehao Chen wrote:
>> This patch backports r199154 from google-4_8 to google-4_9
>>
>> Bo
This patch backports r199154 from google-4_8 to google-4_9
Bootstrapped and passed regression test.
OK for google-4_9 branch?
Thanks,
Dehao
Index: gcc/final.c
===
--- gcc/final.c (revision 210329)
+++ gcc/final.c (working copy)
@@ -
We have open-sourced AutoFDO profile toolchain in:
https://github.com/google/autofdo
For GCC developers, the most important tool is create_gcov, which
converts sampling based profile to GCC-readable profile. Please refer
to the readme file
(https://raw.githubusercontent.com/google/autofdo/master/
This patch handles TYPE_PACK_EXPANSION in lipo_cmp_type.
testing on going. OK for google-4_8?
Thanks,
Dehao
Index: gcc/l-ipo.c
===
--- gcc/l-ipo.c (revision 209226)
+++ gcc/l-ipo.c (working copy)
@@ -676,6 +676,7 @@ lipo_cmp_typ
This patch calls add_fake_edge for the AutoFDO+LIPO path.
Bootstrapped and passed regression test and performance test.
OK for google-4_8?
Thanks,
Dehao
Index: gcc/auto-profile.c
===
--- gcc/auto-profile.c (revision 209123)
+++ gcc
This patch updates SSA after VPT transformation. This is needed
because compute_inline_parameters will ICE without updated SSA.
Testing on-going.
OK for google-4_8?
Thanks,
Dehao
Index: gcc/auto-profile.c
===
--- gcc/auto-profile.c
gt;
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Dehao Chen wrote:
>> Patch updated, passed performance tests.
>>
>> Dehao
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Xinliang David Li
>> wrote:
>>> Add comment to the new function. init_node_map is better invoke
> David
>
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Dehao Chen wrote:
>> This patch refactors LIPO fixup related code to move it into a
>> standalone function. This makes sure that
>> symtab_remove_unreachable_nodes is called right after the fixup so
>>
gt;>
>> OK for trunk?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Dehao
>>
>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>
>> 2014-03-21 Dehao Chen
>>
>> *ipa-inline.c (early_inliner): updates overall summary.
>
> Looks resonable, do you have testcase where it would make a difference?
So
This patch refactors LIPO fixup related code to move it into a
standalone function. This makes sure that
symtab_remove_unreachable_nodes is called right after the fixup so
that there is not dangling cgraph nodes any time.
Bootstrapped and regression test on-going.
OK for google-4_8?
Thanks,
Deha
Hi,
This patch updates node's inline summary after edge_summary is
updated. Otherwise it could lead to incorrect inline summary.
Bootstrapped and gcc regression test on-going.
OK for trunk?
Thanks,
Dehao
gcc/ChangeLog:
2014-03-21 Dehao Chen
*ipa-inline.c (early_inliner): updates ov
ping ^2...
Dehao
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Dehao Chen wrote:
> ping...
>
> Dehao
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Dehao Chen wrote:
>> Thanks, test updated:
>>
>> Index:
This patch guards autofdo annotation coverage recording with a flag.
Test on-going.
OK for google-4_8 if test passes?
Thanks,
Dehao
Index: gcc/auto-profile.c
===
--- gcc/auto-profile.c (revision 208753)
+++ gcc/auto-profile.c (work
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Dehao Chen wrote:
>> Patch updated to add a wrapper early_inline function
>>
>> Index: gcc/auto-profile.c
>> ==
un->last_verified &= ~TODO_verify_ssa;
> }
>
> David
>
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Dehao Chen wrote:
>> This patch calls update_ssa before compute_inline_paramters.
>>
>> Bootstrapped and perf test on-going.
>>
>> OK for google-4_8?
This patch calls update_ssa before compute_inline_paramters.
Bootstrapped and perf test on-going.
OK for google-4_8?
Thanks,
Dehao
Index: gcc/auto-profile.c
===
--- gcc/auto-profile.c (revision 208726)
+++ gcc/auto-profile.c (worki
Looks good to me.
Dehao
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Hán Shěn (沈涵) wrote:
> ARM build (on chrome) is broken because of duplicate entries in arm.md
> and unspecs.md. Fixed by removing duplication and merge those in
> arm.md into unspecs.md.
>
> (We had a similar fix for google/gcc-4_8 here -
Thanks Cary for the comments.
Patch updated, an also added a tool in contrib/ to dump the profile
annotation coverage.
Dehao
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Cary Coutant wrote:
>>
>> +void autofdo_source_profile::write_annotated_count () const
>> +{
>> + switch_to_section (get_section (
During AutoFDO annotation, we want to record the annotation stats into
an elf section, so that we can calculate how much percentage of the
profile is annotated, which can be used as an indicator whether code
has changed significantly comparing with the profiled source.
Bootstrapped and performance
Looks good to me.
Dehao
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Hán Shěn (沈涵) wrote:
> Hi current google/main fails to build for arm because of duplicated
> head file entries in gtyp-input.list.
>
> Fixed by removing duplication in macro tm_file. This only affects arm
> platform. Tested by successfully
This patch removes the size limit for loop unroll/peel when the loop
is truly hot. This makes the implementation easily maintanable between
FDO and AutoFDO.
Bootstrapped and loadtest perf show neutral impact.
OK for google-4_8?
Thanks,
Dehao
Index: gcc/loop-unroll.c
, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Dehao Chen wrote:
>> This patch fixes the bug of not calling compute_inline_parameters
>> before early_inliner, which would lead to ICE.
>>
>> Testing on going, OK for google-4_8 if test passes?
>>
>>
This patch fixes the bug of not calling compute_inline_parameters
before early_inliner, which would lead to ICE.
Testing on going, OK for google-4_8 if test passes?
Thanks,
Dehao
Index: gcc/auto-profile.c
===
--- gcc/auto-profile.c
ping...
Dehao
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Dehao Chen wrote:
> Thanks, test updated:
>
> Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/predict-8.c
> ===
> --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/predict-8.c (revision 0)
> +++ gcc/testsuite/
This patch fixes performance regression for AutoFDO. When the entry
block count is 0, which is quite possible in AutoFDO, it can still
make right optimization decision.
Bootstrapped passed regression test and performance test (improve 0.5%
on average).
OK for google-4_8?
Thanks,
Dehao
Index: gcc
} } */
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 11:38 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 10:20:53AM -0800, Dehao Chen wrote:
>>> --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/predict-8.c (revision 0)
>>> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/predict-8.c
A new test is added:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2014-01-24 Dehao Chen
* gcc.dg/predict-8.c: New test.
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/predict-8.c
===
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/predict-8.c (revision 0)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg
as 1%.
Bootstrapped and passed regression test.
OK for trunk?
Thanks,
Dehao
gcc/ChangeLog:
2014-01-22 Dehao Chen
* dojump.c (do_compare_rtx_and_jump): Sets correct probability for
compiler inserted conditional jumps for NAN float check.
Index: gcc/dojump.c
, Jan 17, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> Can callgraph node count be fixed up properly instead of doing
> individual fixups like this?
>
> David
>
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Dehao Chen wrote:
>> In AutoFDO, sometime edge count might be propagated to be
In AutoFDO, sometime edge count might be propagated to be too large
due to bad debug info. In this cases, we need to make sure the count
scale is no larger than 100% otherwise it'll make real hot code cold.
Bootstrapped and passed regression test. Performance test on-going.
OK for google-4_8 if p
If a loop is cunrolled/vectorized, the AutoFDO computed trip count
will be very small. This patch disallows overwritting of precomputed
loop bound in AutoFDO mode.
Bootstrapped and passed regression test. Performance test on-going.
OK for Google branches?
Thanks,
Dehao
Index: tree-ssa-loop-nite
This patch moves the LIPO linking before profile annotation so that
iterative-early-inline can cover functions from aux-module.
Bootstrapped and passed regression test and benchmark test.
OK for google-4_8?
Thanks,
Dehao
Index: gcc/auto-profile.c
This patch removes mod_id_to_name map because the info is already
there in module_infos. And also, AutoFDO don't have access to update
this map because its a file-static structure.
Bootstrapped and passed regression test.
OK for google branch?
Thanks,
Dehao
Index: gcc/coverage.c
===
This patch fix the bug to honor max-lipo-group for AutoFDO.
Bootstrapped and passed regression test.
OK for google-4_8 branch?
Thanks,
Dehao
Index: gcc/auto-profile.c
===
--- gcc/auto-profile.c (revision 206135)
+++ gcc/auto-prof
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> In this case the backedge will be a critical edge, which will be split by
>> GCC.
>
> Right. So, if I split it, I will reach essentially the same
> conclusion, I think. The new b
of the block itself. Do you see
> any problems with that heuristic?
In this case, the propagate_edge function will keep increasing the BB
count. We set a threshold (PARAM_AUTOFDO_MAX_PROPAGATE_ITERATIONS) to
prevent it from making BB count too large.
Dehao
>
>
> T
afdo_propagate_multi_edge can do everything afdo_propagate_single_edge
does. So we refactor the code to keep only one afdo_propagate_edge
function.
Bootstrapped and passed all unittests and performance tests.
OK for googlge branch?
Thanks,
Dehao
Index: gcc/auto-profile.c
===
}
if ((bb->flags & BB_ANNOTATED) == 0)
{
bb->flags |= BB_ANNOTATED;
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Dehao Chen wrote:
>> This patch removes the zero_edge heuristic during profile propagation.
>
1 - 100 of 408 matches
Mail list logo
