On 03/05/08 06:48, Richard Guenther wrote:
you can see that in both cases the runs without SFTs are significantly
better(!) Which hints at the fact that we do a poor job with parititoning
and/or that partitioning triggers earlier with SFTs enabled.
All these differences seem to be less than 1%. If I'm reading this
table right, the alias oracle is not really having a significant effect
on the scores
The oracle patches are able to slightly improve the results in the non-SFT
case, but overall there is less difference patched vs. unpatched compared
to the differences that result if you disable SFTs.
Without the alias oracle you get:
SFTs (base) No SFTs (peak)
SPECint 1914 1927 (+0.68%)
SPECfp 2029 2032 (+0.15%)
With the alias oracle you get:
SFTs (base) No SFTs (peak)
SPECint 1918 1923 (+0.26%)
SPECfp 2020 2039 (+0.94%)
The good news is that the oracle is not introducing any slowdowns. So I
think this is very positive.
Thus, with the above results I propose we disable generating SFTs by
default on the mainline (--para max-fields-for-field-sensitive=100
is still available for comparision). I will prepare a patch to adjust
the false negative testcases above to check for optimization outcome
as well.
Yes, good idea. Though I think we should just get rid of SFTs outright.
They are only going to be a maintenance problem.
Diego.
