[PATCH] D154205: [MachineLICM] Handle subloops

[Craig Topper via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

craig.topper added a comment.

In D154205#4490194 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D154205#4490194>, @jaykang10 wrote:

> In D154205#4490081 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D154205#4490081>, @craig.topper wrote:
>
>> In D154205#4488424 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D154205#4488424>, @jaykang10 wrote:
>>
>>> I have checked the compile time with llvm-testsuite/CTMark. It looks it is not too bad.
>>>
>>>   workload	org_inst_count	patch_inst_count	diff(%)
>>>   ClamAV	69508780509	69630988308	0.175816347
>>>   7zip	2.32E+11	2.32E+11	0.006923268
>>>   tramp3d-v4	1.05E+11	1.05E+11	0.000903823
>>>   kimwitu++	49770088564	49763466457	-0.013305395
>>>   sqlite3	46693620206	46759200740	0.140448596
>>>   mafft	42673608370	42731240751	0.13505392
>>>   SPASS	56670401414	56809872194	0.246108686
>>>   lencod	79886302869	80002255900	0.145147575
>>>   consumer-typeset	43685066260	43697382603	0.028193486
>>>   Bullet	1.15E+11	1.15E+11	-0.025679361
>>
>> The headings `org_inst_count` and `patch_inst_count` don't sound like compile time to me. That sounds like sizes of the resulting binary?
>
> Ah, sorry for poor explanation.
> It means the instruction count from perf on linux host during compilation of the workloads so bigger number of instruction count means longer compile time.
> I used the `TEST_SUITE_USE_PERF` option with llvm-test-suite and checked the number of instructions from the perfstats file.

Thanks for the clarification.


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D154205/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D154205