[PATCH] D53245: Teach the DominatorTree fallback to recalculation when applying updates to speedup JT (PR37929)

[Chijun Sima via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

NutshellySima added a comment.

In https://reviews.llvm.org/D53245#1265463, @kuhar wrote:

> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D53245#1265454, @NutshellySima wrote:
>
> > I have tested heuristic `k>n/α` with `α=10/40/65/70/75/80/100/300/1000` on `clang.bc`s. (But I didn't save them to a file :\) `10/1000` produce very bad result. ("10" is better than the current implementation). `300` produces better result than `1000`. `40/100` produce better ones than `10/300/1000`. And `65-80` don't make much difference and produce the best results among all αs I selected.
>
>
> I'd be very interested to see the numbers for these constants.


OK, I'll try to get those numbers again.
Do you think for the unittests of the incremental updater, the updater should directly apply updates on a small `k` (don't do recalculation with few updates) or `n` (don't do recalculation on a small graph)?


https://reviews.llvm.org/D53245