> I've updated the patch. Shall I move the check inside cgraph_clone_node?
Thanks, I think it is OK as it is. I belive individual users should know what do to in such cases themselves. You may want to also check what ipa-cp is doing. Patch is OK (with Changelog) Honza > > Thanks, > Dehao > > Index: gcc/ipa-inline-transform.c > =================================================================== > --- gcc/ipa-inline-transform.c (revision 210535) > +++ gcc/ipa-inline-transform.c (working copy) > @@ -183,8 +183,9 @@ clone_inlined_nodes (struct cgraph_edge *e, bool d > if (freq_scale == -1) > freq_scale = e->frequency; > n = cgraph_clone_node (e->callee, e->callee->decl, > - e->count, freq_scale, update_original, > - vNULL, true, inlining_into, NULL); > + MIN (e->count, e->callee->count), freq_scale, > + update_original, vNULL, true, inlining_into, > + NULL); > cgraph_redirect_edge_callee (e, n); > } > } > Index: gcc/tree-inline.c > =================================================================== > --- gcc/tree-inline.c (revision 210535) > +++ gcc/tree-inline.c (working copy) > @@ -4355,7 +4355,7 @@ expand_call_inline (basic_block bb, gimple stmt, c > function in any way before this point, as this CALL_EXPR may be > a self-referential call; if we're calling ourselves, we need to > duplicate our body before altering anything. */ > - copy_body (id, bb->count, > + copy_body (id, cg_edge->callee->count, > GCOV_COMPUTE_SCALE (cg_edge->frequency, CGRAPH_FREQ_BASE), > bb, return_block, NULL); > > > On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Jan Hubicka <hubi...@ucw.cz> wrote: > >> Do you mean adjusting bb->count? Because in > >> expand_call_inline(tree-inline.c), it will use bb->count to pass into > >> copy_body to calculate count_scale. > > > > What about taking here callee->count instead? For inline nodes without > > any capping hack, bb->count == edge->count = callee->count. > > > > When profile ends up being obviously inconsistent, I would say that > > inliner can cap callee->count during producing the clone... > > > > Honza > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Dehao > >> > >> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Jan Hubicka <hubi...@ucw.cz> wrote: > >> >> In AutoFDO, a basic block's count can be much larger than it's actual > >> >> count because debug info might be incorrect. In this case, a call edge > >> >> count (calculated from BB count) could be much larger than callee's > >> >> header count, making the count_scale incorrectly large. > >> > > >> > In this case I still think we should handle this when producing the > >> > clone: > >> > we do not want to have clone's count much larger as well, so i think > >> > inliner > >> > and ipa-cp needs to deal with capping here instead.... > >> > > >> > Honza > >> >> > >> >> Dehao > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > Honza
