On 07/25/2016 10:28 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
But it's not expected that it is not deterministic, so that it changes
run to run. Do you see that? Or some other problem? Please describe
it exactly.
It definitely changes run to run for me.
And do you have autofdo installed? (create_gcov)
No.
jeff
On 07/26/2016 06:28 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> And do you have autofdo installed? (create_gcov)
>
> -Andi
Ah, sorry for the false alarm, create_gcov is really missing on my distribution.
Martin
> >But it's not expected that it is not deterministic, so that it changes
> >run to run. Do you see that? Or some other problem? Please describe
> >it exactly.
> It definitely changes run to run for me.
And do you have autofdo installed? (create_gcov)
-Andi
On 07/25/2016 10:21 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 01:08:43PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
On 07/15/2016 10:37 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 11:33 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
I haven't seen that. Unstable in what way?
For GCC doesn't support FDO,
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 01:08:43PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 07/15/2016 10:37 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 11:33 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > I haven't seen that. Unstable in what way?
> For GCC doesn't support FDO, it run below tests as you
On 07/15/2016 10:37 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 11:33 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> I haven't seen that. Unstable in what way?
For GCC doesn't support FDO, it run below tests as you said:
PASS: gcc.dg/tree-prof/20041218-1.c compilation, -g
> >Not sure what the status for autofdo is in this case. "make check -k"
> >is stable for me, but "make check -k -j#" gives unstable result in
> >tree-prof.exp tests. Anything I did wrong?
> I'm seeing unstable results as well, but haven't dug into it at all.
> It's definitely autofdo testing
On 07/15/2016 02:37 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 11:33 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
I haven't seen that. Unstable in what way?
For GCC doesn't support FDO, it run below tests as you said:
PASS: gcc.dg/tree-prof/20041218-1.c compilation, -g
UNSUPPORTED:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 11:33 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> >> I haven't seen that. Unstable in what way?
>> > For GCC doesn't support FDO, it run below tests as you said:
>> >
>> > PASS: gcc.dg/tree-prof/20041218-1.c compilation, -g
>> > UNSUPPORTED:
> >> I haven't seen that. Unstable in what way?
> > For GCC doesn't support FDO, it run below tests as you said:
> >
> > PASS: gcc.dg/tree-prof/20041218-1.c compilation, -g
> > UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/tree-prof/20041218-1.c: Cannot run create_gcov
> > --binary
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>>> After this patch, I got below test results with command line: make
>>> check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="tree-prof.exp" -k
>>
>> That is expected if you
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> After this patch, I got below test results with command line: make
>> check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="tree-prof.exp" -k
>
> That is expected if you don't have autofdo. You would prefer to hide it?
>
>> Also I got unstable test
> After this patch, I got below test results with command line: make
> check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="tree-prof.exp" -k
That is expected if you don't have autofdo. You would prefer to hide it?
> Also I got unstable test result in tree-prof.exp if I run
> aforementioned command line with -jnum
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> From: ak
>
> Extend the existing bprob and tree-prof tests to also run with autofdo.
> The test runtimes are really a bit too short for autofdo, but it's
> a reasonable sanity
From: ak
Extend the existing bprob and tree-prof tests to also run with autofdo.
The test runtimes are really a bit too short for autofdo, but it's
a reasonable sanity check.
This only works natively for now.
dejagnu doesn't seem to support a wrapper
On 06/22/2016 06:37 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
From: Andi Kleen
Extend the existing bprob and tree-prof tests to also run with autofdo.
The test runtimes are really a bit too short for autofdo, but it's
a reasonable sanity check.
This only works natively for now.
dejagnu
From: Andi Kleen
Extend the existing bprob and tree-prof tests to also run with autofdo.
The test runtimes are really a bit too short for autofdo, but it's
a reasonable sanity check.
This only works natively for now.
dejagnu doesn't seem to support a wrapper for unix
17 matches
Mail list logo