Hello Teresa, It seems to me that it's better if you commit it along with your set of fixes. My patch doesn't fix any bugs, it just exposes them :-)
Ciao! Steven On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 9:09 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohn...@google.com> wrote: > > Hi Steven, > > I've spent this week trying to clean up all the issues exposed by this new > verification patch. Some of the issues I described in the email thread on my > related patch (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-11/msg00287.html) and > earlier in this thread. It also exposed more issues of the type described in > the last message regarding my patch (the link I included here), where > transformations were being applied but the partitions not being correctly > fixed up. Things look clean now across SPEC2006 int C benchmarks at peak, gcc > regression tests and our internal benchmarks. I need to update from head, > retest and clean things up though before sending the new patch. But do you > want to go ahead and commit this patch? I guess it should be fine to commit > asynchronously with mine since -freorder-blocks-and-partition is off by > default and not working anyway. I assume it can still go in since it was > proposed already and is related to some outstanding bugs? > > Thanks, > Teresa > > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohn...@google.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Christophe Lyon >> <christophe.l...@st.com> wrote: >> > On 30.10.2012 17:59, Teresa Johnson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Steven Bosscher <stevenb....@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Hello, >> >>> >> >>> Hot/cold partitioning is apparently a hot topic all of a sudden, which >> >>> is a good thing of course, because it's in need of some TLC. >> >>> >> >>> The attached patch adds another check the RTL cfg checking >> >>> (verify_flow_info) for the partitioning: A hot block can never be >> >>> dominated by a cold block (because the dominated block must also be >> >>> cold). This trips in PR55121. >> >>> >> >>> I haven't tested this with any profiling tests, but it's bound to >> >>> break things. From my POV, whatever gets broken by this patch was >> >>> already broken to begin with :-) If you're in CC, it's because I >> >>> hope you can help test this patch. >> >> >> >> I will try testing your patch on top of mine with our fdo benchmarks. >> >> For the others on the cc list, you may need to include my patch as >> >> well for testing. Without it, -freorder-blocks-and-partition was DOA >> >> for me. For my patch, see >> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg02692.html >> >> >> >> Teresa >> >> >> > I have tried Steven's patch an indeed it reported numerous errors while >> > compiling spec2k. >> > >> > I tried Teresa's patch too, but it changed nothing in my tests. The patches >> > already posted by Matt are still necessary and Teresa's patch does not >> > improve my tests. >> >> With checking enabled I am seeing additional failures that my fixes >> are not addressing. Looking into those now. >> Can someone point me to Matt's patches? Is that this one: >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-09/msg00274.html >> or are there others? >> >> Thanks, >> Teresa >> >> > >> > I am out of office at the moment, so it's a little bit inconvenient to >> > investigate deeper the reasons for all the errors reported by Steven's >> > patch. Anyway it looks like it's really needed :) >> > I also noticed that some compilations failed with an ICE in calc_dfs_tree >> > at >> > dominance.c:395. >> > >> > >> > Christophe. >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohn...@google.com | 408-460-2413 > > > > > -- > Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohn...@google.com | 408-460-2413 >
