1) fixes the problem, so 5 and 4 are now in the same partition. The fix
is quite trivial, as with attached.
That looks obviously correct to me. I can't approve it, but I'd have
committed it as obvious.
Thanks, I'll make the formal request, after checking forthe unexpected
side effects
The problem stems from tree-ssa-tail-merge that breaks bb-count, The
CFG looks like
2
/ \
/6
5 (0) |
| 3 -
|/ \ |
| 7 (1) 8 -
| /
4 (1)
(in parenthesis the bb-count from gcov)
2
/ \
/6
/ |
| 3 --
| / | |
5 (0) 8 --
|
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 4:47 AM, Christian Bruel christian.br...@st.com wrote:
The problem stems from tree-ssa-tail-merge that breaks bb-count, The
CFG looks like
2
/ \
/6
5 (0) |
| 3 -
|/ \ |
| 7 (1) 8 -
| /
4 (1)
(in parenthesis the bb-count
Does this restriction look right to you ? (regression tests are still
running on x86 and sh)
Please generate your patches with diff -up (or svn diff -x -up).
+ (BB_PARTITION (e-src) == BB_PARTITION (e-dest))
No need for parentheses around this check.
The shrink wrapping code
Actually, the edge is fairly simple. I have
BB5 (BB_COLD_PARTITION) - BB10 (BB_HOT_PARTITION) - EXIT
and BB10 has no other incoming edges. and we are duplicating it.
My hypothesis, is that with a gcov based profile, we should never have
such partitioning on the edges, BB10 should be COLD as
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Christian Bruel christian.br...@st.com wrote:
Actually, the edge is fairly simple. I have
BB5 (BB_COLD_PARTITION) - BB10 (BB_HOT_PARTITION) - EXIT
and BB10 has no other incoming edges. and we are duplicating it.
That is wrong, should never happen. Is there a
On 09/11/2012 05:40 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Christian Bruel christian.br...@st.com
wrote:
Actually, the edge is fairly simple. I have
BB5 (BB_COLD_PARTITION) - BB10 (BB_HOT_PARTITION) - EXIT
and BB10 has no other incoming edges. and we are duplicating
when running a cfg dump, I get many messages like:
Invalid sum of incoming frequencies 1667, should be 3334
So it looks like a profile information was not correctly propagated
somewhere. which could lead to such partitioning incoherency. I have no
idea for the moment if this is local problem or
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 05:40:30PM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Christian Bruel christian.br...@st.com
wrote:
Actually, the edge is fairly simple. I have
BB5 (BB_COLD_PARTITION) - BB10 (BB_HOT_PARTITION) - EXIT
and BB10 has no other incoming edges.
