From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-493041-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 52039 invoked by alias); 21 Dec 2018 22:07:53 -0000
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
Received: (qmail 52022 invoked by uid 89); 21 Dec 2018 22:07:52 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:1031, complained, 278
X-HELO: arjuna.pair.com
Received: from arjuna.pair.com (HELO arjuna.pair.com) (209.68.5.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 22:07:50 +0000
Received: by arjuna.pair.com (Postfix, from userid 3006)	id 1A0A48A6F9; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 17:07:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])	by arjuna.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 196008A6ED;	Fri, 21 Dec 2018 17:07:49 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 22:13:00 -0000
From: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@bitrange.com>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
cc: "Bin.Cheng" <amker.cheng@gmail.com>, bin.cheng@linux.alibaba.com,     gcc-patches List <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH AutoFDO]Restoring indirect call value profile transformation
In-Reply-To: <20181218212736.GH25620@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.20.16.1812211702180.97109@arjuna.pair.com>
References: <ae294d36-bc14-4407-8ce0-2f01fc3f651c.bin.cheng@linux.alibaba.com> <87wooai8cs.fsf@linux.intel.com> <CAHFci28x7Gt7=0mViO_PqzN0RPqPho69SER94LEzKoCa8HovRA@mail.gmail.com> <20181218212736.GH25620@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20.16 (BSF 172 2016-09-29)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2018-12/txt/msg01615.txt.bz2

On Tue, 18 Dec 2018, Andi Kleen wrote:

> > Yes, take g++.dg/tree-prof/morefunc.C as an example:
> > -  int i;
> > -  for (i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
> > +  int i, j;
> > +  for (i = 0; i < 1000000; i++)
> > +    for (j = 0; j < 50; j++)
> >       g += tc->foo();
> >     if (g<100) g++;
> >  }
> > @@ -27,8 +28,9 @@ void test1 (A *tc)
> >  static __attribute__((always_inline))
> >  void test2 (B *tc)
> >  {
> > -  int i;
> > +  int i, j;
> >    for (i = 0; i < 1000000; i++)
> > +    for (j = 0; j < 50; j++)
> >
> > I have to increase loop count like this to get stable pass on my
> > machine.  The original count (1000) is too small to be sampled.
>
> IIRC It was originally higher, but people running on slow simulators complained,
> so it was reduced.  Perhaps we need some way to detect in the test suite
> that the test runs on a real CPU.

Doesn't check_effective_target_simulator work here?
See e.g. libstdc++-v3/testsuite/25_algorithms/heap/moveable2.cc
for an example.

brgds, H-P