> On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 05:11:51PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote: > > Index: ChangeLog > > =================================================================== > > --- ChangeLog (revision 244166) > > +++ ChangeLog (working copy) > > @@ -1,3 +1,10 @@ > > +2017-01-01 Jan Hubicka <hubi...@ucw.cz> > > + > > + PR middle-end/77484 > > + * predict.def (PRED_POLYMORPHIC_CALL): Set to 58 > > Missing . at the end. More importantly, you say 58 here, while > > > --- predict.def (revision 244166) > > +++ predict.def (working copy) > > @@ -122,7 +122,7 @@ DEF_PREDICTOR (PRED_CALL, "call", HITRAT > > less reliable for indirect calls and polymorphic calls. For spec2k6 > > the predictio nis slightly in the direction of taking the call. */ > > DEF_PREDICTOR (PRED_INDIR_CALL, "indirect call", HITRATE (51), 0) > > -DEF_PREDICTOR (PRED_POLYMORPHIC_CALL, "polymorphic call", HITRATE (58), 0) > > +DEF_PREDICTOR (PRED_POLYMORPHIC_CALL, "polymorphic call", HITRATE (59), 0) > > > > /* Recursive calls are usually not taken or the function will recurse > > indefinitely. */ > > you've actually changed it from 58 to 59. So is the predict.def change > intent and ChangeLog just stale, something else?
Ah, sorry. I will update the changelog entry. It probably does not really mater if there is 58 or 59, but it is better to stay consistent with experimental data where we can. Honza > > Jakub
