On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 07:28:22AM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> I did a run for powerpc64, one for powerpc, and one for x86-64.
> 
> The powerpc64 bootstrap was with pre-installed GMP etc.; the others
> had those libraries in-tree.
> 
> "type1" is when try_combine used the ancient combine code to split a
> parallel set and set of cc; "type2" is when it used my code to split
> any other parallel that sets two things; and "type0" is when it didn't
> do either but still ended up with I1 and I2 the same UID (I think it
> might be called with the same insn twice; not a good thing, it does
> not know how to handle this; and it is really worrisome that it then
> sometimes succeeds in combining it).
> 
> "tries" is how often that split-orig-I2-to-two code is used; "recog"
> is how often it reached the first call to recog (so it passed
> can_combine_p etc.); "fail" is how often it eventually failed (after
> reaching recog), "one" is how often it combined to one insn, "two"
> is how often it combined to two.
> 
> 
> powerpc64
>       tries   recog   fail    one     two
> type1 39214   39214   38944   202     18
> type2 21540   18968   18928   2       38
> type0         292     289     0       3
> 
> 
> powerpc
>       tries   recog   fail    one     two
> type1 21654   21654   21167   485     2
> type2 21839   19754   19243   0       509     (*)
> type0         427     294     0       133
> 
> 
> x86-64
>       tries   recog   fail    one     two
> type1 17387   17387   17288   70      29
> type2 40413   31681   30242   60      1369
> type0         0       0       0       0

The new numbers:

powerpc64
        tries   recog   fail    one     two
type1   39216   39216   38996   202     18
type2   21540   18968   18928   2       38


powerpc
        tries   recog   fail    one     two
type1   45276   45276   44196   1040    40
type2   46149   41589   40553   0       1032


x86-64
        tries   recog   fail    one     two
type1   17387   17387   17288   70      29
type2   40088   31625   30196   60      1369


Segher

Reply via email to