On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 8:05 AM bin.cheng wrote:
>
> Hmm, mis-attached the old version patch. Here is the updated one.
OK (if still needed)
Richard.
> Thanks,
> bin
>
> --
> Sender:bin.cheng
> Sent At:2019 May 5 (Sun.) 13:54
> Rec
Hmm, mis-attached the old version patch. Here is the updated one.
Thanks,
bin
--
Sender:bin.cheng
Sent At:2019 May 5 (Sun.) 13:54
Recipient:Richard Biener
Cc:GCC Patches
Subject:Re: [PATCH PR90240][RFC]Avoid scaling cost overflow
> --
> 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 Sat, Apr 27, 2
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.
