From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <rguenther@suse.de>
Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.220.29])
 by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 735253856DE2
 for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Tue,  2 Aug 2022 11:59:23 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 735253856DE2
Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay2.suse.de [149.44.160.134])
 by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 681101F98D;
 Tue,  2 Aug 2022 11:59:22 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from wotan.suse.de (wotan.suse.de [10.160.0.1])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BF152C141;
 Tue,  2 Aug 2022 11:59:22 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2022 11:59:22 +0000 (UTC)
From: Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
To: Aldy Hernandez <aldyh@redhat.com>
cc: gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>, 
 "MacLeod, Andrew" <amacleod@redhat.com>, Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>, 
 Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Properly honor param_max_fsm_thread_path_insns in
 backwards threader
In-Reply-To: <CAGm3qMX5_Y98V-bAeMmVKi+WsFv=bPg-T69erm27C-6qyRRo=w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <nycvar.YFH.7.77.849.2208021156050.4208@jbgna.fhfr.qr>
References: <04261.122080204410800126@us-mta-529.us.mimecast.lan>
 <CAGm3qMVDA_sZGntOMyYJ=XwkEW2hbFDDYv5h0B6QncbwnRKc9Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <nycvar.YFH.7.77.849.2208021141380.4208@jbgna.fhfr.qr>
 <CAGm3qMX5_Y98V-bAeMmVKi+WsFv=bPg-T69erm27C-6qyRRo=w@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.22 (LSU 394 2020-01-19)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED,
 DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,
 TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
 server2.sourceware.org
X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-patches>,
 <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-patches>,
 <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2022 11:59:24 -0000

On Tue, 2 Aug 2022, Aldy Hernandez wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 1:45 PM Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2 Aug 2022, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> >
> > > Unfortunately, this was before my time, so I don't know.
> > >
> > > That being said, thanks for tackling these issues that my work
> > > triggered last release.  Much appreciated.
> >
> > Ah.  But it was your r12-324-g69e5544210e3c0 that did
> >
> > -  else if (n_insns > 1)
> > +  else if (!m_speed_p && n_insns > 1)
> >
> > causing the breakage on the 12 branch.  That leads to a simpler
> > fix I guess.  Will re-test and also backport to GCC 12 if successful.
> 
> Huh.  It's been a while, but that looks like a typo.  That patch was
> supposed to be non-behavior changing.

Exactly my thinking so reverting it shouldn't be a reason for
detailed questions.  Now, the contains_hot_bb computation is,
that one was introduced by Honza in r7-6476-g0f0c2cc3a17efa
together with the comment and a testcase.

So - Honza, what was the reasoning to look at raw BB counts here
rather than for example the path entry edge count?

Richard.