Some code size and timing number (profile use compile) are collected. Summary:
Compile time for profile-use compilation increase for all cases --
this is probably not a big issue as this is for peak performance.
It is more interesting to look at the size numbers. C++ program size
actually decreas
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 2:12 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> I have done some SPEC testing evaluating the performance impact of
>> your patch. They look very positive. LIPO got helped even more than
>> FDO (I only did SPEC2k LIPO testin
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> I have done some SPEC testing evaluating the performance impact of
> your patch. They look very positive. LIPO got helped even more than
> FDO (I only did SPEC2k LIPO testing).
Did you also check impact on compile-time and code-size?
I have done some SPEC testing evaluating the performance impact of
your patch. They look very positive. LIPO got helped even more than
FDO (I only did SPEC2k LIPO testing).
Thanks,
David
1. SPEC06 (C/C++) with FDO
before after Improvement
-
Verified identical binaries created and submitted.
Mark
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> Ok with that change to google/main with some retesting.
>
> David
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Mark Heffernan wrote:
>> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Xinliang David
Ok with that change to google/main with some retesting.
David
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Mark Heffernan wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Xinliang David Li
> wrote:
>> The new change won't help those. Your original place will be ok if you
>> test profile_arcs and branch_probabi
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> The new change won't help those. Your original place will be ok if you
> test profile_arcs and branch_probability flags.
Ah, yes. I see your point now. Reverted to the original change with
condition profile_arc_flag and flag_branch_pro
Though not common, people can do this:
1. for profile gen:
gcc -fprofile-arcs ...
2. for profile use
gcc -fbranch-probabilities ...
The new change won't help those. Your original place will be ok if you
test profile_arcs and branch_probability flags.
David
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Ma
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> flag_profile_arcs and flag_branch_probabilities. -fprofile-use
> enables profile-arcs, and value profiling is enabled only when
> edge/branch profiling is enabled (so no need to be checked).
I changed the location where these parameter
To make consistent inline decisions between profile-gen and
profile-use, probably better to check these two:
flag_profile_arcs and flag_branch_probabilities. -fprofile-use
enables profile-arcs, and value profiling is enabled only when
edge/branch profiling is enabled (so no need to be checked).
This small patch greatly expands the function size limits for inlining
with FDO/LIPO. With profile information, the inliner is much more
selective and precise and so the limits can be increased with less
worry that functions and total code size will blow up. This speeds up
x86-64 internal benchma
11 matches
Mail list logo
