From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13236 invoked by alias); 20 Oct 2016 14:43:16 -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 13222 invoked by uid 89); 20 Oct 2016 14:43:15 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=tester, 20.0, 15.4, Est X-HELO: mx2.suse.de Received: from mx2.suse.de (HELO mx2.suse.de) (195.135.220.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 14:43:14 +0000 Received: from relay1.suse.de (charybdis-ext.suse.de [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB064AC29; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 14:43:10 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 14:43:00 -0000 From: Michael Matz To: Jeff Law cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Gimple loop splitting v2 In-Reply-To: <5662987C.9080500@redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <5645083A.5070607@redhat.com> <564A6648.6000002@redhat.com> <565E25E7.7050202@redhat.com> <5662987C.9080500@redhat.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (LSU 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-10/txt/msg01656.txt.bz2 Hi, On Sat, 5 Dec 2015, Jeff Law wrote: > Nit. I don't think you want a comma after "so". And it looks like your > comment got truncated as well. > > With the comment above fixed, this is fine for the trunk. I'm terribly sorry to have dropped the ball here, but I've committed this now after not even a year ;-/ (r241374) Obviously after rebootstrapping with all,ada languages. I also did some benchmark run which should be taken with a grain of salt as the machine had fairly variant results but the improvements are real, though perhaps not always in that range (it's a normal three repeats run). I'm really curious if our automatic tester can pick up similar improvements, because if so, it's extreme (5 to 15 percent in some benchmarks) and we can brag about it for GCC 7 ;-) 400.perlbench 9770 519 18.8 * 9770 508 19.2 * 401.bzip2 9650 668 14.5 * 9650 666 14.5 * 403.gcc 8050 455 17.7 * 8050 432 18.6 * 429.mcf 9120 477 19.1 * 9120 467 19.5 * 445.gobmk 10490 643 16.3 * 10490 644 16.3 * 456.hmmer 9330 641 14.6 * 9330 614 15.2 * 458.sjeng 12100 784 15.4 * 12100 762 15.9 * 462.libquantum 20720 605 34.2 * 20720 600 34.5 * 464.h264ref 22130 969 22.8 * 22130 969 22.8 * 471.omnetpp 6250 438 14.3 * 6250 358 17.5 * 473.astar 7020 494 14.2 * 7020 492 14.3 * 483.xalancbmk 6900 342 20.2 * 6900 336 20.6 * Est. SPECint(R)_base2006 17.9 Est. SPECint2006 18.5 410.bwaves 13590 563 24.1 * 13590 506 26.9 * 416.gamess NR NR 433.milc 9180 375 24.5 * 9180 349 26.3 * 434.zeusmp 9100 433 21.0 * 9100 423 21.5 * 435.gromacs 7140 402 17.7 * 7140 411 17.4 * 436.cactusADM 11950 486 24.6 * 11950 486 24.6 * 437.leslie3d 9400 421 22.4 * 9400 419 22.4 * 444.namd 8020 520 15.4 * 8020 520 15.4 * 447.dealII NR NR 450.soplex 8340 393 21.2 * 8340 391 21.3 * 453.povray 5320 277 19.2 * 5320 278 19.1 * 454.calculix 8250 453 18.2 * 8250 460 17.9 * 459.GemsFDTD 10610 542 19.6 * 10610 537 19.8 * 465.tonto 9840 492 20.0 * 9840 491 20.0 * 470.lbm 13740 466 29.5 * 13740 430 32.0 * 481.wrf 11170 492 22.7 * 11170 457 24.4 * 482.sphinx3 19490 659 29.6 * 19490 655 29.8 * Est. SPECfp(R)_base2006 21.6 Est. SPECfp2006 22.1 Ciao, Michael.