There are actually two patches needed to port to mainline. I'll send
out the patch tomorrow.
Dehao
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 4:58 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Xinliang David Li writes:
>
>> Ok for now as a workraround, but this is probably not a long term fix.
>
> Is the workaround needed for the main
Xinliang David Li writes:
> Ok for now as a workraround, but this is probably not a long term fix.
Is the workaround 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 f
Ok for now as a workraround, but this is probably not a long term fix.
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.
>
> OK for google-4_9?
>
> Thanks,
> Dehao
>
> Index: gcc/auto-pr
The patch was updated to ignore comdat einline tuning for AutoFDO.
Performance testing is green.
OK for google-4_9?
Thanks,
Dehao
Index: gcc/auto-profile.c
===
--- gcc/auto-profile.c (revision 217523)
+++ gcc/auto-profile.c (working
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 <3. But it
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Dehao Chen wrote:
> IIRC, AutoFDO the actual iteration for AutoFDO is mostly <3. But it
> should not harm to set max iter as 10.
>
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> After inline summary is recomputed, the large code growth problem will
IIRC, AutoFDO the actual iteration for AutoFDO is mostly <3. But it
should not harm to set max iter as 10.
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> After inline summary is recomputed, the large code growth problem will
> also be better controlled, right?
For this case, recompu
After inline summary is recomputed, the large code growth problem will
also be better controlled, right?
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
>
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Dehao Chen
Is there a need to have 10 iterations of early inline for autofdo?
David
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Dehao Chen wrote:
> In AutoFDO, we increase einline iterations. This could lead to
> extensive code bloat if we have recursive calls like:
>
> dtor() {
> destroy(node);
> }
>
> destroy(nod
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
10 matches
Mail list logo
