On 4/8/10 14:34 , Jan Hubicka wrote: >> On 4/8/10 14:30 , Jan Hubicka wrote: >>>>> On 4/8/10 14:10 , Jan Hubicka wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> So I think tying WHOPR and profile feedback too close together is a >>>>>> mistake. >>>>> >>>>> Sorry, I didn't mean that. My intent is to make whopr/lto use profiling >>>>> information if it is available. Much like we do with other optimization >>>>> decisions. They transparently become more precise in the presence of >>>>> profiling information. >>>> >>>> Both LTO and WHOPR now works with profiling pretty well (and I've switched >>> ^^^^^ too much of market speach. WHOPR is not working well, >>> profile feedback or not ;) >> >> Ah! I was going to say :) >> >> For WHOPR, the partitioning should be driven by profile info (if >> available). First, it should Just Work, of course. > > Well, since we should be able to stream out the result of IPA propagation > across whole program, the particular partitioning decision should not be that > important (i.e. affecting the propagation in late compilation and possibly > some > simple IPA passes we might do before but don't at the moment). > > But yes, we should be able to get hot part of program into single closed > partition or something like that to get some extra score.
Right. That's (in its most basic form) what LIPO does with the grouping model. David, what else does LIPO use the profiling information for? Diego.