From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-406691-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 3282 invoked by alias); 15 Nov 2012 02:02:03 -0000
Received: (qmail 2503 invoked by uid 55); 15 Nov 2012 02:01:04 -0000
From: "hubicka at ucw dot cz" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug bootstrap/55051] [4.8 Regression] profiledbootstrap failed
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 02:02:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: bootstrap
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: hubicka at ucw dot cz
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.8.0
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-55051-4-Pn68qfJeyd@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-55051-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-55051-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-11/txt/msg01353.txt.bz2


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051

--- Comment #21 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz> 2012-11-15 02:01:01 UTC ---
> Ok, I can do that. I had tried that but didn't see any gain yet (need
> to take a look at my results again). I have been playing with teasing
> apart the various uses of this cutoff (inlining vs instruction
> selection vs etc) too, but can do that in a later release once the
> appropriate individual cutoffs are tuned. I also have a loop unroller
> patch on the google branch that uses this that needs to be ported to
> trunk. It was in the original working set patch I sent for review,
> that ended up being split out and revised heavily. Shall I resubmit
> this part for 4.8 or is it too late?

I can't review the unroller change, so you should ask one of the maintainers
of the area.  For the hot/cold change, I would really like to see it in.
(and yes, I also plan to use it for more aggressive inlining in known to
be hot areas).

Honza