Re: [PATCH 2/3] Run profile feedback tests with autofdo

2016-07-27 Thread Jeff Law
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

Re: [PATCH 2/3] Run profile feedback tests with autofdo

2016-07-27 Thread Martin Liška
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

Re: [PATCH 2/3] Run profile feedback tests with autofdo

2016-07-25 Thread Andi Kleen
> >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

Re: [PATCH 2/3] Run profile feedback tests with autofdo

2016-07-25 Thread Jeff Law
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,

Re: [PATCH 2/3] Run profile feedback tests with autofdo

2016-07-25 Thread Andi Kleen
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

Re: [PATCH 2/3] Run profile feedback tests with autofdo

2016-07-25 Thread Martin Liška
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

Re: [PATCH 2/3] Run profile feedback tests with autofdo

2016-07-15 Thread Andi Kleen
> >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

Re: [PATCH 2/3] Run profile feedback tests with autofdo

2016-07-15 Thread Jeff Law
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:

Re: [PATCH 2/3] Run profile feedback tests with autofdo

2016-07-15 Thread Bin.Cheng
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:

Re: [PATCH 2/3] Run profile feedback tests with autofdo

2016-07-14 Thread Andi Kleen
> >> 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

Re: [PATCH 2/3] Run profile feedback tests with autofdo

2016-07-14 Thread Bin.Cheng
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

Re: [PATCH 2/3] Run profile feedback tests with autofdo

2016-07-14 Thread Bin.Cheng
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

Re: [PATCH 2/3] Run profile feedback tests with autofdo

2016-07-14 Thread Andi Kleen
> 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

Re: [PATCH 2/3] Run profile feedback tests with autofdo

2016-07-12 Thread Bin.Cheng
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

[PATCH 2/3] Run profile feedback tests with autofdo

2016-06-23 Thread Andi Kleen
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

Re: [PATCH 2/3] Run profile feedback tests with autofdo

2016-06-22 Thread Jeff Law
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

[PATCH 2/3] Run profile feedback tests with autofdo

2016-06-22 Thread Andi Kleen
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