On Wednesday, 17 January 2018 at 21:49:52 UTC, Johan Engelen wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 January 2018 at 04:37:04 UTC, Jon Degenhardt wrote:

Clearly personal judgment played a role. However, the tools are reasonably task focused, and I did take basic steps to ensure the benchmark data and tests were separate from the training data/tests. For these reasons, my confidence is good that the results are reasonable and well founded.

Great, thanks for the details, I agree.
Hope it's useful for others to see these details.

Thanks Johan, much appreciated. :)

(btw, did you also check the performance gains when using the profile of the benchmark itself, to learn about the upper-bound of PGO for your program?)

I'll merge the IR PGO addition into LDC master soon. Don't know what difference it'll make.

No, I didn't do an upper-bounds check, that's a good idea. I plan to test the IR based PGO when it's available, I'll run an upper-bounds check as part of it.

Reply via email to