public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>
To: Bin Cheng <Bin.Cheng@arm.com>,
	       "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Cc: nd <nd@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH PR69042/02]Increase PARAM_IV_CONSIDER_ALL_CANDIDATES_BOUND from 30 to 40
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 16:10:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <56F01B9F.10809@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DB5PR08MB1144F3A58EE515D942C98E09E78F0@DB5PR08MB1144.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>

On 03/21/2016 09:14 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
> Hi,
> After patch fixing PR69042 at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-03/msg00887.html, GCC hits bound (30) for parameter PARAM_IV_CONSIDER_ALL_CANDIDATES_BOUND in case 173.applu, which causes ~4% regression on AArch64.  Since adding more candidates is inevitable (Well, we might be able to further reduce candidate number, but that's not for current stage), this patch increases the bound from 30 to 40.  The parameter and the bound are introduced in 2004 and haven't changed since then.  Given hardwares are improved in last ten years, I think it is acceptable to make such a change.
> Bootstrap gcc and build spec2k6 on x86_64/AArch64, there is no obvious regression in compilation time.
> I also compiled an IVOPT heavy program affected in spec2k by ~150 times, overall compilation time is regressed by 1% because of this change.  I looked into the specific case,  IVOPT compilation time of IVOPT was actually reduced by >20% last year because of address type uses grouping.  I have another patch which can further reduce IVOPT compilation time (and its memory use) by 7-8%.  The idea is skipping cost computation for sub-uses in group, of course it may result in different assembly code for some complicated cases because it estimates cost rather than doing real computation.  I did double check one of such case that the change in generated assembly is not degeneration.  I have some other ideas which might be helpful too, but they are not stage4 stuff.
>
> So is this OK?
>
> 2016-03-21  Bin Cheng  <bin.cheng@arm.com>
>
> 	PR tree-optimization/69042
> 	* params.def (PARAM_IV_CONSIDER_ALL_CANDIDATES_BOUND): Increase the
> 	parameter from 30 to 40.
OK.
jeff

      reply	other threads:[~2016-03-21 16:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-03-21 15:23 Bin Cheng
2016-03-21 16:10 ` Jeff Law [this message]

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=56F01B9F.10809@redhat.com \
    --to=law@redhat.com \
    --cc=Bin.Cheng@arm.com \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=nd@arm.com \
    /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).