From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 124236 invoked by alias); 23 Dec 2015 06:36:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 124222 invoked by uid 89); 23 Dec 2015 06:36:24 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=tough, 403, 429, benchmarks X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 06:36:23 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1B7991356; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 06:36:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([10.3.113.15]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id tBN6aKQF009240; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 01:36:20 -0500 Subject: Re: [Patch,tree-optimization]: Add new path Splitting pass on tree ssa representation To: Ajit Kumar Agarwal , Richard Biener References: <37378DC5BCD0EE48BA4B082E0B55DFAA41F3F56C@XAP-PVEXMBX02.xlnx.xilinx.com> <37378DC5BCD0EE48BA4B082E0B55DFAA4295155D@XAP-PVEXMBX02.xlnx.xilinx.com> <37378DC5BCD0EE48BA4B082E0B55DFAA4295ADCB@XAP-PVEXMBX02.xlnx.xilinx.com> <55D4F921.2020708@redhat.com> <37378DC5BCD0EE48BA4B082E0B55DFAA4297704C@XAP-PVEXMBX02.xlnx.xilinx.com> <5643A732.4040707@redhat.com> <5644C6CC.90203@redhat.com> <5644DB59.9040809@redhat.com> <56450B62.4090404@redhat.com> <56460F19.5010009@redhat.com> <0B62FFB6-DF7A-4080-A655-3E51070E1DEE@gmail.com> <564646AA.5030300@redhat.com> <564673DA.3020403@redhat.com> <5669DBCD.1060507@redhat.com> <37378DC5BCD0EE48BA4B082E0B55DFAA429D4950@XAP-PVEXMBX02.xlnx.xilinx.com> Cc: GCC Patches , Vinod Kathail , Shail Aditya Gupta , Vidhumouli Hunsigida , Nagaraju Mekala From: Jeff Law Message-ID: <567A40E4.1030508@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 06:36:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <37378DC5BCD0EE48BA4B082E0B55DFAA429D4950@XAP-PVEXMBX02.xlnx.xilinx.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-12/txt/msg02076.txt.bz2 On 12/11/2015 02:11 AM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote: > > Mibench/EEMBC benchmarks (Target Microblaze) > > Automotive_qsort1(4.03%), Office_ispell(4.29%), Office_stringsearch1(3.5%). Telecom_adpcm_d( 1.37%), ospfv2_lite(1.35%). I'm having a real tough time reproducing any of these results. In fact, I'm having a tough time seeing cases where path splitting even applies to the Mibench/EEMBC benchmarks mentioned above. In the very few cases where split-paths might apply, the net resulting assembly code I get is the same with and without split-paths. How consistent are these results? What functions are being affected that in turn impact performance? What options are you using to compile the benchmarks? I'm trying with -O2 -fsplit-paths and -O3 in my attempts to trigger the transformation so that I can look more closely at possible heuristics. Is this with the standard microblaze-elf target? Or with some other target? jeff