From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-304912-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 4875 invoked by alias); 19 Oct 2011 08:45:09 -0000
Received: (qmail 4837 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Oct 2011 08:45:02 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from nikam.ms.mff.cuni.cz (HELO nikam.ms.mff.cuni.cz) (195.113.20.16)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 08:44:49 +0000
Received: by nikam.ms.mff.cuni.cz (Postfix, from userid 16202)	id 5B2529AC669; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 10:44:48 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 10:17:00 -0000
From: Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz>
To: Dehao Chen <dehao@google.com>
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz>,	Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com>
Subject: Re: patch ping: Dump the "degree of overlap" to compare static	profile with instrumentation profile
Message-ID: <20111019084448.GC11144@kam.mff.cuni.cz>
References: <CAO2gOZV3DW_m8i6syL7t8wqyoWWiSVCZ1o=3fM0_XtZJSzoY3g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAO2gOZV3DW_m8i6syL7t8wqyoWWiSVCZ1o=3fM0_XtZJSzoY3g@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-10/txt/msg01710.txt.bz2

> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-09/msg01293.html

Hi,
this seems fine for mainline.  I am not 100% sure it is best choice of metric
(i.e. mostly one is interested if hot blocks identified by static profile cover
hot blocks of real profile), but we could get some experience with it.

Thanks,
Honza
> 
> Thanks!
> Dehao