http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
--- Comment #20 from Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google dot com> 2012-11-15 01:52:45 UTC --- On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 5:42 PM, hubicka at ucw dot cz <gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051 > > --- Comment #19 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz> 2012-11-15 01:42:55 > UTC --- >> Oh got it - it is this one, right?: >> >> profiling:/home/tejohnson/extra/gcc_trunk_3_obj/libcpp/files.gcda:Invocation >> mismatch - some data files may have been removed > > Yes, it is this one. >> >> I think this one was there before, but I had to modify it after my >> histogram change. I will take a look. > > Also could you please make a patch to make maybe_hot_count_p to use > hitogram driven cutoff? Otherwise the histograms would be completely > unused for 4.8 and it would be stupid to carry all the extra data > for no use. I would like this to be done soon, since I plan to base > some of inliner re-tunning to be based on this. Ok, I can do that. I had tried that but didn't see any gain yet (need to take a look at my results again). I have been playing with teasing apart the various uses of this cutoff (inlining vs instruction selection vs etc) too, but can do that in a later release once the appropriate individual cutoffs are tuned. I also have a loop unroller patch on the google branch that uses this that needs to be ported to trunk. It was in the original working set patch I sent for review, that ended up being split out and revised heavily. Shall I resubmit this part for 4.8 or is it too late? Thanks, Teresa > > The mismatch is independent problem, yes. > > Honza > > -- > Configure bugmail: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email > ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- > You are on the CC list for the bug. -- Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohn...@google.com | 408-460-2413
