I need this support for LIPO but it might be also useful for trunk.
The support is 'borrowed' from lib/lto.exp. I have tested with it and
it works fine. The only limitation is for any subdirectory with a
multi-source test case, all the other single source test case need
also to follow the same nam
thanks. Will correct.
David
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 2:03 AM, Rainer Orth
wrote:
> David,
>
>> 2011-05-01 David Li
>>
>> * testsuite/lib/profopt.exp (proc): Multiple source file support.
> ^
>
> This is wrong, t
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 2:11 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> Here is the background for this feature:
>>
>> 1) People relies on function multi-version to explore hw features and
>> squeeze performance, but t
n to make sure it is
> available for our internal use at Google in order to materialize some
> optimization opportunities. Let us continue this dicussion as I make
> changes and submit this for review for trunk.
>
> Thanks,
> -Sri.
>
>
> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 9:41 AM,
Is this one ok?
David
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> During function cloning, the language field of the src func is not
> copied. This can lead to null dereference when gcc calls into langhook
> functions. Unfortunately, I lost track of the test case.
&
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 2:11 AM, Richard Guenther
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Xinliang David Li
>>> wrote:
>>>
In trunk, this is guarded -- but not setting language field
for clone probably just hide the problem.
Thanks,
David
>
> Honza
>>
>> David
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Xinliang David Li
>> wrote:
>> > During function cloning, the langua
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 3:00 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:07 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Richard Guenther
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Xinliang David Li
>>> wrote:
>>>
>
> I can think of some more-or-less obvious high-level forms, one would
> for example simply stick a new DISPATCH tree into gimple_call_fn
> (similar to how we can have OBJ_TYPE_REF there), the DISPATCH
> tree would be of variable length, first operand the selector function
> and further operands
Is this patch ok for trunk?
Allowing relative path in -fprofile-generate= is very useful when
running the program remotely -- the profile data will be just dumped
in the dir relative to the working dir in the remote machine. Using
GCOV_PREFIX_STRIP can workaround the problem, but it is not always
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 2:16 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 12:19 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>>>
>>> I can think of some more-or-less obvious high-level forms, one would
>>> for example simply stick a new DISPATCH tree into gimple_call_fn
&
>> I want propose a more general solution.
>>
>> 1) Generic Annotation Support for gcc IR -- it is used attach to
>> application/optimization specific annotation to gimple statements and
>> annotations can be passed around across passes. In gcc, I only see
>> HISTOGRAM annotation for value profilin
Honza, what do you think of the patch? It actually fixed a regression.
Thanks,
David
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> Is this patch ok for trunk?
>
> Allowing relative path in -fprofile-generate= is very useful when
> running the program remotely -- the
On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 5:46 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>>>> I want propose a more general solution.
>>>>
>>>> 1) Generic Annotation Support for gcc IR -- it is used attach to
>>>> app
Ok.
The instrumentation and optimization runtime has not been open sourced
yet -- will need to be done later at some point.
(For reference, see Silvius's CGO2011 paper).
Thanks,
David
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
> This patch by Silvius Rus replaces calls to certain
The following patch temporarily disable some of the checking which is
not fully 'lipo' aware. It will be checked into google/main and
further cleanups will follow.
David
2011-05-10 David Li
* cgraphunit.c (revision 173635) (verify_cgraph_node):
(cgraph_mark_functions_to_output
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 5:54 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 05/13/2011 03:03 AM, Rong Xu wrote:
>>
>> * gcc/coverage.c (revision 173717): set a flag if building
>> for Linux kernel.
>> * gcc/tree-profile.c (revision 173717): don't emit TLS
>> declarations for Linux kernel bu
Agreed.
David
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 3:27 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 5:54 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> > On 05/13/2011 03:03 AM, Rong Xu wrote:
>> >>
>> >> * gcc/coverage.c (revision 173717): set a flag if building
>> >> for Linux kernel.
>> >> * gcc/
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Jan Hubicka writes:
>> Yep,
>> I think it does make sense to share the implementation, but we need to find
>> resonable way to do so.
>
> I doubt this will be very popular with the kernel community, which
> prefers self contained code.
Won't b
You will have a followup patch to override arm defaults, right? Ok for
google/main.
Thanks,
David
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 9:29 PM, Mark Heffernan wrote:
> This tiny change improves the size estimation for inlining and results in an
> average 1% size reduction and a small (maybe 0.25% geomean) p
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).
39 AM, Mark Heffernan wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Xinliang David Li
> wrote:
>>
>> To make consistent inline decisions between profile-gen and
>> profile-use, probably better to check these two:
>>
>> flag_profile_arcs and flag_branch_probabilitie
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
>>
Thanks for the comment. Will fix those.
David
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> On Wed, 18 May 2011, David Li wrote:
>
>> + error ("Unrecognized option %s", is_enable ? "-fenable" :
>> "-fdisable");
>
Will fix the Changelog, and add documentation.
Thanks,
David
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 8:37 PM, David Li wrote:
>>
>> In gcc, not all passes have user level control to turn it on/off, and
>> there is no way to fli
The attached is the revised patch. Bootstrap and regression tested in
trunk on x86-64/linux.
Ok for checkin?
Thanks,
David
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> Will fix the Changelog, and add documentation.
>
> Thanks,
>
> David
>
>
>
> On W
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> davi...@google.com (David Li) writes:
>
>> -fdisable-tree-ccp1 <--- disable ccp1 for all functions
>> -fenable-tree-cunroll=1 <--- enable complete unroll for the function
>>
11081 0.92%
179.art29792884 -3.18%
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Mark Heffernan wrote:
> Verified identical binaries created and submitted.
>
> Mark
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Xinliang David Li
>
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 11:10:24AM -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> > davi...@google.com (David Li) writes:
>> >
>> >> -fdisable-tree-ccp1
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
Ok to check in this one?
Thanks,
David
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> On Wed, 18 May 2011, David Li wrote:
>
>> + error ("Unrecognized option %s", is_enable ? "-fenable" :
>> "-fdisable");
>
forever
(whole night already) to finish possibly because the lto test in
c-torture ..).
Ok for trunk?
David
2011-03-08 Xinliang David Li
PR c/47837
* tree-ssa-uninit.c (pred_chain_length_cmp): New function.
(normalize_preds): New function
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> Please review the attached patch, it does some simplification of the
> complicated logical or expressions (x1 or x2 or x3 ...) constructed
> from control flow analysis into simpler form.
>
> Bootstraps and works on
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 03/08/2011 12:54 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>>
>> Please review the attached patch, it does some simplification of the
>> complicated logical or expressions (x1 or x2 or x3 ...) constructed
>> from control
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 03/08/11 11:55, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> On 03/08/2011 12:54 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>>> Please review the attached patch, it does some simplification of the
Diego Novillo wrote:
>>> On 03/08/2011 12:54 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>>>> Please review the attached patch, it does some simplification of the
>>>> complicated logical or expressions (x1 or x2 or x3 ...) constructed
>>>> from control flow anal
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 6:03 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 03/09/11 02:45, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>
>> True. I've been repeatedly thinking of building some on-the-side CFG
>> with value-numbered pr
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 6:03 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On 03/09/11 02:45, Ric
9:54 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 6:34 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Richard Guenther
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Xinliang David Li
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 6
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 03/09/11 09:24, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 6:03 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 03/09/11 02:45, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>>>> On
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 6:16 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 14:32, Jeff Law wrote:
>
>>> Regarding this particular patch, I hope it can be checked in to make
>>> the test clean. It is a simple enhancement to a wheel that is already
>>> there. It also serves as a case that can
-tree-xxx-blocks so the same
post-processing tools can be shared to generate the .dot file. To see
bb layout, the BB sequence number is also dumped.
Bootstrapped on x86-64/linux. Regression test is on going.
Ok for checkin?
Thanks,
David
2011-04-03 Xinliang David Li
* final.c
Hi please review the attached patch.
Ok when bootstrap and test finish?
Thanks,
David
2011-04-07 Xinliang David Li
* ipa-cp.c (ipcp_update_profiling): Correct
negative scale factor due to insane profile data.
Index: ipa-cp.c
:
-Wno-error=maybe-uninitialized
This is useful for users who only care about definite uninitialized
variable warnings.
Ok for trunk?
thanks,
David
2011-04-07 Xinliang David Li
* tree-ssa-uninit.c (warn_uninitialized_phi): Pass
warning code.
* c-family/c-opts.c
04-07 Xinliang David Li
* value-profile.c (function_decl_num_args): New function.
(check_ic_target): New function.
(gimple_ic_transform): Sanity check indirect call target.
check_ic.p
Description: Binary data
Ping?
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> For an assembly dump, it is very useful to examine the control flow
> graph with frequency and profile count information. This requires
> dumping the .s file with more control flow annotations. This patch
> does ju
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 5:04 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 04/03/2011 08:54 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>
>> +
>> + fprintf (file, "# BLOCK %d", bb->index);
>> + if (bb->frequency)
>> + fprintf (file, " freq:%d", bb->fre
Please review this patch. Regression test is ok. I will do more
application testing to make sure the check is not too strict
(filtering out legal ic targets).
Thanks,
David
2011-04-07 Xinliang David Li
* value-profile.c (function_decl_num_args): New function
Hi, this patch fixes the test failure. OK after bootstrap and regression test?
Thanks,
David
2011-04-08 Xinliang David Li
PR tree-optimization/PR48484
* tree-ssa-uninit.c (convert_control_dep_chain_into_preds): Set
has_valid_pred lazily
2011-04-08 Xinliang David
SPEC06 build with FDO is ok with the patch -- no abnormality was found.
David
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> Please review this patch. Regression test is ok. I will do more
> application testing to make sure the check is not too strict
> (filtering out
Is this patch OK?
Thanks,
David
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> SPEC06 build with FDO is ok with the patch -- no abnormality was found.
>
> David
>
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> Please review this patch. Regressi
1001 - 1051 of 1051 matches
Mail list logo
