Hello Jeff: I am out on vacation till 3rd Jan 2016. Is it okay If I respond on the below once I am back in office.
Thanks & Regards Ajit -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 12:06 PM To: Ajit Kumar Agarwal; Richard Biener Cc: GCC Patches; Vinod Kathail; Shail Aditya Gupta; Vidhumouli Hunsigida; Nagaraju Mekala Subject: Re: [Patch,tree-optimization]: Add new path Splitting pass on tree ssa representation On 12/11/2015 02:11 AM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote: > > Mibench/EEMBC benchmarks (Target Microblaze) > > Automotive_qsort1(4.03%), Office_ispell(4.29%), Office_stringsearch1(3.5%). > Telecom_adpcm_d( 1.37%), ospfv2_lite(1.35%). I'm having a real tough time reproducing any of these results. In fact, I'm having a tough time seeing cases where path splitting even applies to the Mibench/EEMBC benchmarks mentioned above. In the very few cases where split-paths might apply, the net resulting assembly code I get is the same with and without split-paths. How consistent are these results? What functions are being affected that in turn impact performance? What options are you using to compile the benchmarks? I'm trying with -O2 -fsplit-paths and -O3 in my attempts to trigger the transformation so that I can look more closely at possible heuristics. Is this with the standard microblaze-elf target? Or with some other target? jeff
