-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5k
JIT: Compact blocks in fgMoveBackwardJumpsToSuccessors #102512
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
JIT: Compact blocks in fgMoveBackwardJumpsToSuccessors #102512
Conversation
Tagging subscribers to this area: @JulieLeeMSFT, @jakobbotsch |
I noticed some x86 failures locally; I'll fix these and then run CI to verify |
In |
/azp run runtime-coreclr libraries-pgo |
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
@EgorBo I think Jakob is offline, could you PTAL? Thank you! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
/ba-g timeouts on Linux blocking clean CI |
Follow-up to dotnet#102461, and part of dotnet#9304. Compacting blocks after establishing an RPO-based layout, but before moving backward jumps to fall into their successors, can enable more opportunities for branch removal; see dotnet#9304 for one such example.
Follow-up to dotnet#102461, and part of dotnet#9304. Compacting blocks after establishing an RPO-based layout, but before moving backward jumps to fall into their successors, can enable more opportunities for branch removal; see dotnet#9304 for one such example.
Follow-up to #102461, and part of #9304. Compacting blocks after establishing an RPO-based layout, but before moving backward jumps to fall into their successors, can enable more opportunities for branch removal (example). Here are the diffs on Windows x64: gist. TP impact is minimal, ranging from -0.05% to +0.01%.
cc @dotnet/jit-contrib, @jakobbotsch PTAL. I'm ok with us deciding to merge this now, or some time after merging #102343. Thanks!