On Wednesday, 17 January 2018 at 21:49:52 UTC, Johan Engelen
wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 January 2018 at 04:37:04 UTC, Jon Degenhardt
wrote:
Clearly personal judgment played a role. However, the tools
are reasonably task focused, and I did take basic steps to
ensure the benchmark data and tests were separate from the
training data/tests. For these reasons, my confidence is good
that the results are reasonable and well founded.
Great, thanks for the details, I agree.
Hope it's useful for others to see these details.
Thanks Johan, much appreciated. :)
(btw, did you also check the performance gains when using the
profile of the benchmark itself, to learn about the upper-bound
of PGO for your program?)
I'll merge the IR PGO addition into LDC master soon. Don't know
what difference it'll make.
No, I didn't do an upper-bounds check, that's a good idea. I plan
to test the IR based PGO when it's available, I'll run an
upper-bounds check as part of it.
