From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 125279 invoked by alias); 27 Jan 2016 07:13:54 -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 125260 invoked by uid 89); 27 Jan 2016 07:13:53 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=1.35, stare, Gupta, gupta 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, 27 Jan 2016 07:13:52 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27414C60E4; Wed, 27 Jan 2016 07:13:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from slagheap.utah.redhat.com (ovpn-113-73.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.73]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u0R7DoB3013425; Wed, 27 Jan 2016 02:13:50 -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> <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> <567A40E4.1030508@redhat.com> <37378DC5BCD0EE48BA4B082E0B55DFAA429DED02@XAP-PVEXMBX02.xlnx.xilinx.com> <5699E412.3090700@redhat.com> <37378DC5BCD0EE48BA4B082E0B55DFAA429E5A4E@XAP-PVEXMBX02.xlnx.xilinx.com> Cc: GCC Patches , Vinod Kathail , Shail Aditya Gupta , Vidhumouli Hunsigida , Nagaraju Mekala From: Jeff Law Message-ID: <56A86E2E.2030709@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 07:13:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <37378DC5BCD0EE48BA4B082E0B55DFAA429E5A4E@XAP-PVEXMBX02.xlnx.xilinx.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-01/txt/msg02081.txt.bz2 On 01/18/2016 02:13 AM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Law [mailto:law@redhat.com] > Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2016 12:03 PM > To: Ajit Kumar Agarwal; Richard Biener > Cc: GCC Patches; Vinod Kathail; Shail Aditya Gupta; Vidhumouli Hunsigida; Nagaraju Mekala > Subject: Re: [Patch,tree-optimization]: Add new path Splitting pass on tree ssa representation > > On 01/04/2016 07:32 AM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote: >> >> >> -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Law [mailto:law@redhat.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 12:06 PM To: Ajit Kumar Agarwal; >> Richard Biener Cc: GCC Patches; Vinod Kathail; Shail Aditya Gupta; >> Vidhumouli Hunsigida; Nagaraju Mekala Subject: Re: >> [Patch,tree-optimization]: Add new path Splitting pass on tree ssa >> representation >> >> 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? >> >> I am consistently getting the gains for office_ispell and >> office_stringsearch1, telcom_adpcm_d. I ran it again today and we see >> gains in the same bench mark tests with the split path changes. >> >>>> What functions are being affected that in turn impact performance? >> >> For office_ispell: The function are Function "linit (linit, >> funcdef_no=0, decl_uid=2535, cgraph_uid=0, symbol_order=2) for >> lookup.c file". "Function checkfile (checkfile, funcdef_no=1, >> decl_uid=2478, cgraph_uid=1, symbol_order=4)" " Function correct >> (correct, funcdef_no=2, decl_uid=2503, cgraph_uid=2, symbol_order=5)" >> " Function askmode (askmode, funcdef_no=24, decl_uid=2464, >> cgraph_uid=24, symbol_order=27)" for correct.c file. >> >> For office_stringsearch1: The function is Function "bmhi_search >> (bmhi_search, funcdef_no=1, decl_uid=2178, cgraph_uid=1, >> symbol_order=5)" for bmhisrch.c file. >>> Can you send me the pre-processed lookup.c, correct.c and bmhi_search.c? > >>> I generated mine using x86 and that may be affecting my ability to reproduce your results on the microblaze target. Looking specifically at bmhi_search.c and correct.c, I see they are >>going to be sensitive to the target headers. If (for exmaple) they use FORTIFY_SOURCE or macros for toupper. > >>> In the bmhi_search I'm looking at, I don't see any opportunities for the path splitter to do anything. The CFG just doesn't have the right shape. Again, that may be an artifact of how >>toupper is implemented in the system header files -- hence my request for the cpp output on each of the important files. > > Would you like me to send the above files and function pre-processed with -E option flag. That would be perfect. I'm on the road the latter half of the week into early next week -- the long flights might be a good time for me to stare at the dumps and tweak the heuristic a bit. jeff