:2019 May 5 (Sun.) 13:54
> Recipient:Richard Biener
> Cc:GCC Patches
> Subject:Re: [PATCH PR90240][RFC]Avoid scaling cost overflow by introducing
> scaling bound
>
>
> > --
> > Sender:Richard Biener
> &g
overflow by introducing
scaling bound
> --
> Sender:Richard Biener
> Sent At:2019 Apr. 29 (Mon.) 20:01
> Recipient:bin.cheng
> Cc:GCC Patches ; mliska
> Subject:Re: [PATCH PR90240][RFC]Avoid scaling cost overf
> --
> Sender:Richard Biener
> Sent At:2019 Apr. 29 (Mon.) 20:01
> Recipient:bin.cheng
> Cc:GCC Patches ; mliska
> Subject:Re: [PATCH PR90240][RFC]Avoid scaling cost overflow by introducing
> scaling bound
&
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 4:05 AM Bin.Cheng wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 8:01 PM Richard Biener
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 6:13 AM bin.cheng
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > This is the draft patch avoiding scaling cost overflow by introducing a
> > > scaling bound
> >
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 8:01 PM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 6:13 AM bin.cheng wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > This is the draft patch avoiding scaling cost overflow by introducing a
> > scaling bound
> > in IVOPTs. For now the bound is 20, and scaling factor will be further
>
On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 6:13 AM bin.cheng wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> This is the draft patch avoiding scaling cost overflow by introducing a
> scaling bound
> in IVOPTs. For now the bound is 20, and scaling factor will be further
> scaled wrto
> this bound. For example, scaling factor like 1, 1000, 20
On 4/27/19 6:12 AM, bin.cheng wrote:
> HI Martin, I remember you introduced comp_cost/cost_scaling to improve one
> case
> in spec2017. Unfortunately I don't have access to the benchmark now, could
> you help
> verify that if this patch has performance issue on it please? Thanks
Yes, it's 548.
Hi,
This is the draft patch avoiding scaling cost overflow by introducing a scaling
bound
in IVOPTs. For now the bound is 20, and scaling factor will be further scaled
wrto
this bound. For example, scaling factor like 1, 1000, 2000(max) would be
scaled to
1, 10, 20 correspondingly.
HI Martin