On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 1:10 AM Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 04:15:20PM +0800, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 4:07 PM Andi Kleen wrote:
> > >
> > > Bin Cheng,
> > >
> > > I did some testing on this now. The attached patch automatically
> > > increases the iteration
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 04:15:20PM +0800, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 4:07 PM Andi Kleen wrote:
> >
> > Bin Cheng,
> >
> > I did some testing on this now. The attached patch automatically increases
> > the iterations
> > for autofdo profiles.
> Hi Andi, thanks very much for tuning
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 4:07 PM Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> Bin Cheng,
>
> I did some testing on this now. The attached patch automatically increases
> the iterations
> for autofdo profiles.
Hi Andi, thanks very much for tuning these.
>
> But even with even more iterations I still have stable failures
Bin Cheng,
I did some testing on this now. The attached patch automatically increases the
iterations
for autofdo profiles.
But even with even more iterations I still have stable failures in
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-prof/cold_partition_label.c scan-assembler foo[._]+cold
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-prof/cold_pa
On Tue, 18 Dec 2018, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Yes, take g++.dg/tree-prof/morefunc.C as an example:
> > - int i;
> > - for (i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
> > + int i, j;
> > + for (i = 0; i < 100; i++)
> > +for (j = 0; j < 50; j++)
> > g += tc->foo();
> > if (g<100) g++;
> > }
> > @@ -2
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 06:28:29PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 4:41 PM Andi Kleen wrote:
> >
> > > > We can combine the two together, increasing iteration count and
> > > > decreasing perf count at the same time. What count would you suggest
> > > > from your experience
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 4:41 PM Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > > We can combine the two together, increasing iteration count and
> > > decreasing perf count at the same time. What count would you suggest
> > > from your experience?
> >
> > Can we instead for the tests where we want to test profile use/m
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 12:08:35PM +0800, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 12:00 PM Andi Kleen wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 10:01:15AM +0800, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 7:15 PM Bin.Cheng wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 9:11 AM Andi Kleen wro
> > We can combine the two together, increasing iteration count and
> > decreasing perf count at the same time. What count would you suggest
> > from your experience?
>
> Can we instead for the tests where we want to test profile use/merge
> elide the profiling step and supply the "raw" data in a
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 5:08 AM Bin.Cheng wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 12:00 PM Andi Kleen wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 10:01:15AM +0800, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 7:15 PM Bin.Cheng wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 9:11 AM Andi Kleen wrote:
> >
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 12:00 PM Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 10:01:15AM +0800, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 7:15 PM Bin.Cheng wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 9:11 AM Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "bin.cheng" writes:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > >
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 10:01:15AM +0800, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 7:15 PM Bin.Cheng wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 9:11 AM Andi Kleen wrote:
> > >
> > > "bin.cheng" writes:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Due to ICE and mal-functional bugs, indirect call value profil
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 09:26:51AM +0800, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 5:27 AM Andi Kleen wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, take g++.dg/tree-prof/morefunc.C as an example:
> > > - int i;
> > > - for (i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
> > > + int i, j;
> > > + for (i = 0; i < 100; i++)
> > > +for
On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 7:15 PM Bin.Cheng wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 9:11 AM Andi Kleen wrote:
> >
> > "bin.cheng" writes:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Due to ICE and mal-functional bugs, indirect call value profile
> > > transformation
> > > is disabled on GCC-7/8/trunk. This patch resto
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 5:27 AM Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > Yes, take g++.dg/tree-prof/morefunc.C as an example:
> > - int i;
> > - for (i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
> > + int i, j;
> > + for (i = 0; i < 100; i++)
> > +for (j = 0; j < 50; j++)
> > g += tc->foo();
> > if (g<100) g++;
> >
> Yes, take g++.dg/tree-prof/morefunc.C as an example:
> - int i;
> - for (i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
> + int i, j;
> + for (i = 0; i < 100; i++)
> +for (j = 0; j < 50; j++)
> g += tc->foo();
> if (g<100) g++;
> }
> @@ -27,8 +28,9 @@ void test1 (A *tc)
> static __attribute__((alw
On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 9:11 AM Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> "bin.cheng" writes:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Due to ICE and mal-functional bugs, indirect call value profile
> > transformation
> > is disabled on GCC-7/8/trunk. This patch restores the transformation. The
> > main issue is AutoFDO should store cg
"bin.cheng" writes:
> Hi,
>
> Due to ICE and mal-functional bugs, indirect call value profile transformation
> is disabled on GCC-7/8/trunk. This patch restores the transformation. The
> main issue is AutoFDO should store cgraph_node's profile_id of callee func in
> the first histogram value's
On 12/12/18 8:50 PM, bin.cheng wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Due to ICE and mal-functional bugs, indirect call value profile transformation
> is disabled on GCC-7/8/trunk. This patch restores the transformation. The
> main issue is AutoFDO should store cgraph_node's profile_id of callee func in
> the first h
Hi,
Due to ICE and mal-functional bugs, indirect call value profile transformation
is disabled on GCC-7/8/trunk. This patch restores the transformation. The
main issue is AutoFDO should store cgraph_node's profile_id of callee func in
the first histogram value's counter, rather than pointer to c
20 matches
Mail list logo
