Hi, On Wed, Sep 23 2020, Jan Hubicka wrote: >> There's patch that does that. >> >> Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests. >> >> Ready to be installed? >> Thanks, >> Martin > >> From ff5f78110684ed9aedde15d19e856b3acf649971 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> From: Martin Liska <mli...@suse.cz> >> Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 15:10:43 +0200 >> Subject: [PATCH] Port IPA CP time and size to sreal >> >> gcc/ChangeLog: >> >> * ipa-cp.c (ipcp_lattice::print): Print sreal values >> with to_double. >> (incorporate_penalties): Change type to sreal. >> (good_cloning_opportunity_p): Change args to sreal. >> (get_max_overall_size): Work in sreal type. >> (estimate_local_effects): Likewise. >> (safe_add): Remove. >> (value_topo_info::propagate_effects): Work in sreal type. >> (ipcp_propagate_stage): Print sreal numbers. >> (decide_about_value): Work in sreal type. >> --- >> gcc/ipa-cp.c | 128 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------- >> 1 file changed, 59 insertions(+), 69 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/gcc/ipa-cp.c b/gcc/ipa-cp.c >> index b3e7d41ea10..9a79b5862f8 100644 >> --- a/gcc/ipa-cp.c >> +++ b/gcc/ipa-cp.c >> @@ -157,10 +157,10 @@ class ipcp_value_base >> public: >> /* Time benefit and size cost that specializing the function for this >> value >> would bring about in this function alone. */ >> - int local_time_benefit, local_size_cost; >> + sreal local_time_benefit, local_size_cost; >> /* Time benefit and size cost that specializing the function for this >> value >> can bring about in it's callees (transitively). */ >> - int prop_time_benefit, prop_size_cost; >> + sreal prop_time_benefit, prop_size_cost; > > Time calculaitons can get out of hand, while size calculations still > corresponds to actual program instructions, so int should be enough > (I would start using 64bit ints for whole program statistics, like > overall size below because eventaully we may hit that).
Please note that in PR 96806 we have seen size overflow int when the value of param ipa-cp-max-recursive-depth is huge. So you either need to keep using safe_add for it or make it a 64 bit int everywhere (and hope that other things break earlier if someone wants to use a value of the param big enough to overflow even 64 bits - or that people testing GCC with strange parameters do not test values this extreme :-). Martin
