> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 2:21 AM, Jan Hubicka <hubi...@ucw.cz> wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Jan Hubicka <hubi...@ucw.cz> wrote: > >> > Hi, > >> > It seems that majority of testcases are independent of lipo. We could > >> > probably > >> > enjoy more of testing on mainline, so could you please take those > >> > working on > >> > mainline and make mainline patch and let me know what of the tests are > >> > not working > >> > there? > >> > >> Actually those test cases are cloned from tree-prof directory into the > >> lipo sub-directory. The difference is that lipo.exp file passes > >> additional -fripa flag. The missing tests for LIPO are ones with > >> multiple source with non trivial module group testing -- I have not > >> added those yet. > > > > Hmm, the tests looked familiar so I wondered how redundant they are ;) > > Well, any tests that you do have for PDO and are not in mainlie are welcome. > >> > >> > > >> > We probably ought to fix the pass name... We already have "ipa-profile" > >> > for profile > >> > propagation. What about "gcov", unless we could come with something > >> > better? > >> > >> Yes -- tree_profile_ipa and ipa_profile confuses many people. > > > > If we won't get better idea, I would go with gcov. > > Maybe it is better to change ipa-profile to something like > ipa_freq_prop. Gcov is the name for coverage --- though it is > related to profiling and FDO, and it can so be confusing.
Well, pass_ipa_profile is at IPA level what pass_profile does at tree level, so we would need to rename both. We could go with something like guess_profile as opposed to read profile, unless we come with anything better. gcov originales from coverage, indeed, but it is sort of used for the whole profiling/feedback infrastructure. I dunno what is better, both variants are fine with me. Do we need to use _ instead of - in pass names? I quite dislike the -fdump-ipa-profile_estimate naming, so I am usually trying to stick with one word pass names for this reason... Honza > > David > > > > > Honza > >
