Re: [PATCH] Implement ipa_vr hashing.

[Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches]

PING*3

On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 7:49 AM Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Ping*2
>
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2023, 14:11 Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> PING
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 10, 2023 at 10:30 PM Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 5/29/23 16:51, Martin Jambor wrote:
>> > > Hi,
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, May 22 2023, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> > >> Implement hashing for ipa_vr.  When all is said and done, all these
>> > >> patches incurr a 7.64% slowdown for ipa-cp, with is entirely covered by
>> > >> the similar 7% increase in this area last week.  So we get type agnostic
>> > >> ranges with "infinite" range precision close to free.
>> > >
>> > > Do you know why/where this slow-down happens?  Do we perhaps want to
>> > > limit the "infiniteness" a little somehow?
>> >
>> > I addressed the slow down in another mail.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Also, jump functions live for a long time, have you looked at how memory
>> > > hungry they become?  I hope that the hashing would be good at preventing
>> > > any issues.
>> >
>> > On a side-note, the caching does help.  On a (mistaken) hunch, I had
>> > played around with removing caching for everything but UNDEFINED/VARYING
>> > and zero/nonzero to simplify things, but the cache hit ratio was still
>> > surprisingly high (+80%).  So good job there :-).
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Generally, I think I OK with the patches if the impact on memory is not
>> > > too bad, though I guess they depend on the one I looked at last week, so
>> > > we may focus on that one first.
>> >
>> > I'm not sure whether this was an OK for the other patches, given you
>> > approved the first patch, so I'll hold off until you give the go-ahead.
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>> > Aldy