> On 01/23/2018 11:02 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >> On 01/19/2018 12:57 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> >>> Yes, there's a huge difference in between CPU 2006 and 2017. Former has
> >>> 63% w/ dominant edges,
> >>> and later one only 11%. It's caused by these 2 benchmarks with a high
> >>> coverage:
> >>
On 01/23/2018 11:02 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> On 01/19/2018 12:57 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>> Yes, there's a huge difference in between CPU 2006 and 2017. Former has 63%
>>> w/ dominant edges,
>>> and later one only 11%. It's caused by these 2 benchmarks with a high
>>> coverage:
>>>
>>
>> Hi.
>>
> On 01/19/2018 12:57 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> > Yes, there's a huge difference in between CPU 2006 and 2017. Former has 63%
> > w/ dominant edges,
> > and later one only 11%. It's caused by these 2 benchmarks with a high
> > coverage:
> >
>
> Hi.
>
> I'm sending details about the 2 edges tha
On 01/19/2018 12:57 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> Yes, there's a huge difference in between CPU 2006 and 2017. Former has 63%
> w/ dominant edges,
> and later one only 11%. It's caused by these 2 benchmarks with a high
> coverage:
>
Hi.
I'm sending details about the 2 edges that influence the stat
dator.cpp.065i.profile:
negative return heuristics of edge 3->4: 2.0% exec 1221735072 hit 1221522453
(100.0%)
Ideas what to do with the predictor for GCC 8 release?
Martin
>
> Honza
>>
>> Martin
>
>> >From afbc86cb72eab37bcf6325954d0bf306b301f7
idea is that negative values are often used to report error codes and that
seems
reasonable. Perhaps it can be made more specific so it remains working ofr
spec2k16?
Honza
>
> Martin
> >From afbc86cb72eab37bcf6325954d0bf306b301f76e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: marxin
:00 2001
From: marxin
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2017 10:23:48 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 4/5] Remove predictors that are unrealiable.
gcc/ChangeLog:
2017-12-28 Martin Liska
* predict.c (return_prediction): Do not predict
PRED_NEGATIVE_RETURN.
(tree_bb_level_predictions): Do not predict PRED_R
