lebedev.ri added a comment. In D87972#2294614 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D87972#2294614>, @lebedev.ri wrote:
> In D87972#2294488 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D87972#2294488>, @xbolva00 wrote: > >>>> Does that sound reasonable? >> >> Yes IMHO. >> >>>> What are the next suggested steps? >> >> It would be great to isolate and check the cases which regressed a bit. > > I've rerun my benchmark, and while the results are still the same (runtime > geomean -0.53%/-0.40%, > but that obviously depends on the benchmarks), there are some obvious > outliers: > F13059172: image.png <https://reviews.llvm.org/F13059172> > F13059175: rsbench.txt <https://reviews.llvm.org/F13059175> > I'll try to take a look at that, assuming it's not noise. Hmm. So i did just take a look, manually re-benchmarking each of these, and while i still see a few small improvements, the regressions there are all appear to be basically noise. Not what i was hoping for :/ In D87972#2284060 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D87972#2284060>, @MaskRay wrote: > I have tested this patch internally and seen gains and losses. On one > document search related benchmark 3~5% improvement. One zippy (snappy) there > is 3~5% regression. Perhaps we do need a conditional extra SROA run. Does it look like one of the scary "branch predictor got confused"/"code layout changed causing different alignment"? I'm not really sure what are my potential next steps here. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D87972/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D87972 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
