From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 753 invoked by alias); 28 Apr 2011 15:08:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 731 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Apr 2011 15:08:44 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RFC_ABUSE_POST X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-ww0-f51.google.com (HELO mail-ww0-f51.google.com) (74.125.82.51) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:08:26 +0000 Received: by wwf26 with SMTP id 26so2972117wwf.8 for ; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 08:08:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.202.82 with SMTP id fd18mr1501932wbb.209.1304003304581; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 08:08:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.20.74 with HTTP; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 08:08:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20110428020958.F0B4F15C1FA@nabu.mtv.corp.google.com> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:35:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Here is an updated patch. (issue4438079) From: Richard Guenther To: Diego Novillo Cc: Sharad Singhai , reply@codereview.appspotmail.com, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2011-04/txt/msg02230.txt.bz2 On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Diego Novillo wrote: > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 22:09, Sharad Singhai wrote: >> Hi Diego, >> >> Thanks for the quick feedback. Here is a an updated version of the patch. >> >> 2011-04-27 =A0Sharad Singhai =A0 >> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0ChangeLog.google-main >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0* params.def: Add new parameters to control peeling. >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0* tree-ssa-loop-ivcanon.c (try_unroll_loop_completely): U= se >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0different peeling parameters when profile feedback is ava= ilable. >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0* loop-unroll.c (decide_peel_once_rolling): Ditto. >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0(decide_peel_completely): Ditto. >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0* doc/invoke.texi: Document new peeling parameters. >> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0testsuite/ChangeLog.google-main >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0* gcc.dg/vect/O3-vect-pr34223.c: Add new peeling >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0parameters. >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0* gcc.dg/vect/vect.exp: Allow reading flags in individual >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0tests. > > OK for google/main. > > Will you be submitting this patch for trunk as well? =A0If you get it > approved for trunk then you will not need to maintain it in > google/main :) The doc change looks weird, you should have separate entries and not combine them. Checking just for profile_info !=3D NULL is bogus, please instead check profile_status =3D=3D PROFILE_READ. Did you do any measurements to decide on the param defaults? Parameter defaults should be documented. Did you consider adding a single parameter that scales the existing parameters for hot loops with profile-feedback? Richard. > Diego. >