There are still some minor bugs in the current implementation, which
is fixed by the attached patch:
passed bootstrap/regression tests for both google-4_6 and google-main branch.
ok for google branch?
Thanks,
Dehao
gcc/ChangeLog.google-4_6
2012-01-31 Dehao Chen <de...@google.com>
* predict.c (predict_iv_comparison): Add new parameter, ensure that
the loop_iv_base and compare_base are identical.
Index: gcc/predict.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/predict.c (revision 183783)
+++ gcc/predict.c (working copy)
@@ -1126,8 +1126,8 @@
}
/* Predict branch probability of BB when BB contains a branch that compares
- an induction variable in LOOP to LOOP_BOUND_VAR. The loop exit is
- compared using LOOP_BOUND_CODE, with step of LOOP_BOUND_STEP.
+ an induction variable with LOOP_IV_BASE_VAR in LOOP to LOOP_BOUND_VAR. The
+ loop exit is compared using LOOP_BOUND_CODE, with step of LOOP_BOUND_STEP.
E.g.
for (int i = 0; i < bound; i++) {
@@ -1142,6 +1142,7 @@
static void
predict_iv_comparison (struct loop *loop, basic_block bb,
tree loop_bound_var,
+ tree loop_iv_base_var,
enum tree_code loop_bound_code,
int loop_bound_step)
{
@@ -1184,7 +1185,8 @@
return;
}
- if (!expr_coherent_p (loop_bound_var, compare_var))
+ if (!expr_coherent_p (loop_bound_var, compare_var)
+ || loop_iv_base_var != compare_base)
return;
/* If loop bound, base and compare bound are all constents, we can
@@ -1213,13 +1215,17 @@
compare_count ++;
if (loop_bound_code == LE_EXPR || loop_bound_code == GE_EXPR)
loop_count ++;
+ if (compare_count < 0)
+ compare_count = 0;
+ if (loop_count < 0)
+ loop_count = 0;
if (loop_count == 0)
probability = 0;
else if (compare_count > loop_count)
- probability = 1;
+ probability = REG_BR_PROB_BASE;
else
- probability = REG_BR_PROB_BASE * compare_count / loop_count;
+ probability = (double) REG_BR_PROB_BASE * compare_count / loop_count;
predict_edge (then_edge, PRED_LOOP_IV_COMPARE, probability);
return;
}
@@ -1405,7 +1411,7 @@
predict_edge (e, PRED_LOOP_EXIT, probability);
}
if (loop_bound_var)
- predict_iv_comparison (loop, bb, loop_bound_var,
+ predict_iv_comparison (loop, bb, loop_bound_var, loop_iv_base,
loop_bound_code,
loop_bound_step);
}
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 5:25 PM, <davi...@google.com> wrote:
> Ok for google branches for now.
>
> thanks,
>
> David
>
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/5504086/diff/1004/gcc/predict.c
> File gcc/predict.c (right):
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/5504086/diff/1004/gcc/predict.c#newcode958
> gcc/predict.c:958: find_qualified_ssa_name (tree t1, tree t2)
> Better change the name into 'strips_small_constant'
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/5504086/diff/1004/gcc/predict.c#newcode991
> gcc/predict.c:991: Return NULL if T does not satisfy IV_COMPARE
> condition. */
> Fix comment -- there is no IV_COMPARE used here.
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/5504086/diff/1004/gcc/predict.c#newcode995
> gcc/predict.c:995: {
> Better change the name into 'get_base_value (tree t)' because the method
> basically strips the constant 'offset' away.
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/5504086/diff/1004/gcc/predict.c#newcode1102
> gcc/predict.c:1102: a similar variable. */
> Fix the comments. Returns true if T1 and T2 are value coherent.
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/5504086/diff/1004/gcc/predict.c#newcode1106
> gcc/predict.c:1106: {
> May be changing the name to
>
> expr_coherent_p (tree t1, tree t2)
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/5504086/diff/1004/gcc/predict.c#newcode1206
> gcc/predict.c:1206: && (compare_code == LT_EXPR || compare_code ==
> LE_EXPR))
> Fix indentation.
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/5504086/
