Hi Armin,

Thank you for the reply.  I'll check (1) the config, (2) the frontend code
that emits guard_not_invalidated, and (3) the actual performance on HW this
weekend.

Regards,
Logan

On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 4:45 AM Armin Rigo <armin.r...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Logan,
>
> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 08:37, Logan Chien <tzuhsiang.ch...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > IIUC, the difference is that guard_not_invalidated is at a different
> location.
> >
> > But I don't understand why the backend can affect the logs in the
> 'jit-log-opt-' tag.
>
> There are a few ways to influence the front-end: for example, the
> "support_*" class-level flags.  Maybe the front-end did either do or
> skip a specific optimization when compared with x86, and it results
> only in a 'guard_not_invalidated' being present or not (and then once
> it is emitted, it's not emitted again a few instructions below).  Or
> there are some other reasons.  But as a general rule, we can mostly
> ignore the position of 'guard_not_invalidated'.  It should have no
> effect except in corner cases.
>
> > Also, I found that reduce_logical_and (failed) and reduce_logical_xor
> (passed) are very different.
> >
> > Is there more information on the details of this test?  Any ideas to
> debug this test case are very welcomed!  Thanks.
>
> A possibility is that some of these tests are flaky in the sense of
> passing half by chance on x86---I vaguely remember having some
> troubles sometimes.  It's sometimes hard to write tests without
> testing too many details.  Others may have better comments about them.
> Generally, it's OK to look at what you got and compare it with what
> the test expects.  If you can come up with a reason for why what you
> got is correct too, and free of real performance issues, then that's
> good enough.
>
> A bientôt,
> Armin
>
_______________________________________________
pypy-dev mailing list -- pypy-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to pypy-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/pypy-dev.python.org/
Member address: arch...@mail-archive.com

Reply via email to