Displaying 7 results from an estimated 7 matches for "md_count".
Did you mean:
mc_count
2015 May 07
3
[LLVMdev] RFC - Improvements to PGO profile support
...t; count fits the bill
> 2) There are two ways to compute profile count for BBs
> a) directly compute it from the edge count recorded in profile data
> (and BB Frequency can be directly scaled from it), but this change
> requires slightly changing MD_prof's meaning or introducing MD_count
> to record edge count without capping/scaling.
>
> b) Just recording the entry profile count (minimal change), but do
> not change MD_prof. This approach will reuse block frequency
> propagation, but the later relies on unaltered branch
> probability/weight in order to recompu...
2015 May 07
2
[LLVMdev] RFC - Improvements to PGO profile support
...> 2) There are two ways to compute profile count for BBs
>>> a) directly compute it from the edge count recorded in profile data
>>> (and BB Frequency can be directly scaled from it), but this change
>>> requires slightly changing MD_prof's meaning or introducing MD_count
>>> to record edge count without capping/scaling.
>>>
>>> b) Just recording the entry profile count (minimal change), but do
>>> not change MD_prof. This approach will reuse block frequency
>>> propagation, but the later relies on unaltered branch
>...
2015 Mar 24
8
[LLVMdev] RFC - Improvements to PGO profile support
...y different ways of representing profile
> information in LLVM IR. It is great to have two complementary
> approaches to collecting profile data, but two representations in
> the IR would not make sense.
>
>
> Yeah, I don't think I'll continue to push for a new MD_count
> attribute. If we were to make MD_prof be a "real" execution count,
> that would be enough. Note that by re-using MD_prof we are not
> changing its meaning at all. The execution count is still a weight and
> the ratio is still branch probability. All that we are changing...
2015 Mar 26
2
[LLVMdev] RFC - Improvements to PGO profile support
> On Mar 24, 2015, at 3:22 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Bob Wilson <bob.wilson at apple.com <mailto:bob.wilson at apple.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 24, 2015, at 12:08 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Bob
2015 Mar 05
5
[LLVMdev] RFC - Improvements to PGO profile support
> On Mar 2, 2015, at 4:19 PM, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google.com <mailto:dnovillo at google.com>> wrote:
>
> I've created a few bugzilla issues with details of some of the things I'll be looking into. I'm not yet done wordsmithing the overall design document.
2015 Mar 24
3
[LLVMdev] RFC - Improvements to PGO profile support
...ays of representing profile information in LLVM IR. It is great to have two
>>> complementary approaches to collecting profile data, but two representations
>>> in the IR would not make sense.
>>
>>
>> Yeah, I don't think I'll continue to push for a new MD_count attribute. If
>> we were to make MD_prof be a "real" execution count, that would be enough.
>> Note that by re-using MD_prof we are not changing its meaning at all. The
>> execution count is still a weight and the ratio is still branch probability.
>> All that we a...
2015 May 22
2
[LLVMdev] RFC - Improvements to PGO profile support
...; 2) There are two ways to compute profile count for BBs
> >> a) directly compute it from the edge count recorded in profile data
> >> (and BB Frequency can be directly scaled from it), but this change
> >> requires slightly changing MD_prof's meaning or introducing MD_count
> >> to record edge count without capping/scaling.
> >>
> >> b) Just recording the entry profile count (minimal change), but do
> >> not change MD_prof. This approach will reuse block frequency
> >> propagation, but the later relies on unaltered branch...