public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "hubicka at ucw dot cz" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/110852] [14 Regression] ICE: in get_predictor_value, at predict.cc:2695 with -O -fno-tree-fre and __builtin_expect() since r14-2219-geab57b825bcc35
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2024 17:06:57 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-110852-4-oPPKWvylDW@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-110852-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110852

--- Comment #14 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz> ---
> I thought the goal was to handle what is in predict-18.c, i.e.
> b * __builtin_expect (c, 0)
> or similar.  If it is about
> __builtin_expect_with_probability (b, 42, 0.25) *
> __builtin_expect_with_probability (c, 0, 0.42)
> sure, my version will merge the probabilities, while you'll pick the
> probability from
> the 0 case.

Probability from 0 case is better estimate, so I think it makes sense to
handle it right.  I did not take that much stats on how often it
happens, but on my TODO list is to turn this into value range predictor
which may have better chance of success. We can also handle other
constants than INTEGER_CST.

I will see if I can clean up the code bit more or add a comment, since
it is indeed bit confusing as written now.  Will also look into more
testcases.

Thanks a lot!
Honza

  parent reply	other threads:[~2024-01-04 17:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-07-30  9:02 [Bug tree-optimization/110852] New: [14 Regression] ICE: in get_predictor_value, at predict.cc:2695 with -O -fno-tree-fre and __builtin_expect() zsojka at seznam dot cz
2023-07-30 20:04 ` [Bug tree-optimization/110852] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-08-01 13:57 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-10-17 12:23 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-10-17 12:23 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-10-22 23:40 ` [Bug tree-optimization/110852] [14 Regression] ICE: in get_predictor_value, at predict.cc:2695 with -O -fno-tree-fre and __builtin_expect() since r14-2219-geab57b825bcc35 sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-11-13  3:27 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-04 14:42 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-04 15:24 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
2024-01-04 15:30 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-04 15:59 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-04 16:06 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
2024-01-04 16:17 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-04 16:26 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
2024-01-04 16:35 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-04 16:37 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-04 17:06 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz [this message]
2024-01-17 14:20 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-17 14:22 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-110852-4-oPPKWvylDW@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).