On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 7:02 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 12:35 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Teresa Johnson
>> wrote:
>>> FYI, Fixed in r198416.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Teresa
>>>
>>
>> I noticed that sometimes GCC generates:
>>
>> _8 = memcpy (ret_
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 12:35 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>> FYI, Fixed in r198416.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Teresa
>>
>
> I noticed that sometimes GCC generates:
>
> _8 = memcpy (ret_6, s_2(D), len_4);
> _8 = memcpy (ret_6, s_2(D), len_4);
> memcpy (_17,
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> FYI, Fixed in r198416.
>
> Thanks,
> Teresa
>
I noticed that sometimes GCC generates:
_8 = memcpy (ret_6, s_2(D), len_4);
_8 = memcpy (ret_6, s_2(D), len_4);
memcpy (_17, buffer_12(D), add_16);
memcpy (_17, buffer_12(D), add_16);
memcpy (
FYI, Fixed in r198416.
Thanks,
Teresa
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> Reproduced. This looks like another instance of a case I found testing
> my follow-on patch: the helper routines have some assertion checking
> that is too strict for the broader usage where we may be
Reproduced. This looks like another instance of a case I found testing
my follow-on patch: the helper routines have some assertion checking
that is too strict for the broader usage where we may be scaling
counts up and not just down. I am verifying and will send a patch in
the morning that suppress
I'll take a look. Teresa
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 3:29 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 7:18 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 2:27 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Teresa Johnson
>>> wrote:
I found that the node weight update
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 7:18 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 2:27 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>>> I found that the node weight updates on cloned nodes during ipa-cp were
>>> leading to incorrect/insane weights. Both the
Hi Honza,
I converted all other weight update locations to use the helper
functions in basic-block.h instead of truncation (the patch I checked
in a couple weeks ago covered the cases that already used RDIV - see
the follow-on messages in this thread). I am almost done testing with
SPEC cpu2006. S
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> > I found that the node weight updates on cloned nodes during ipa-cp were
> > leading to incorrect/insane weights. Both the original and new node weight
> > computations used truncating divides, leading to a loss of total node
> > weight.
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 2:27 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>>> I found that the node weight updates on cloned nodes during ipa-cp were
>>> leading to incorrect/insane weights. Both the
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 2:27 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>> I found that the node weight updates on cloned nodes during ipa-cp were
>> leading to incorrect/insane weights. Both the original and new node weight
>> computations used truncating
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> I found that the node weight updates on cloned nodes during ipa-cp were
> leading to incorrect/insane weights. Both the original and new node weight
> computations used truncating divides, leading to a loss of total node weight.
> I have fix
I found that the node weight updates on cloned nodes during ipa-cp were
leading to incorrect/insane weights. Both the original and new node weight
computations used truncating divides, leading to a loss of total node weight.
I have fixed this by making both rounding integer divides.
Bootstrapped a
13 matches
Mail list logo
