Hello,
Le 01/03/2017 à 18:51, Antoine Pitrou a écrit :
> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 12:28:24 -0500
> Barry Warsaw <barry at python.org> wrote:
>>>> Louis (Cc'd here) has done a ton of work to measure and analyze the problem,
>> but we've more or less hit a roadblock, so we're taking the issue public to
>> see if anybody on this mailing list has further ideas. A detailed analysis is
>> available in this Google doc:
>>>>https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zrV3OIRSo99fd2Ty4YdGk_scmTRDmVauBprKL8eij6w/edit>>>> The document should be public for comments and editing.
>> I may be misunderstanding the document, but this lacks at least a
> comparison of the *same* interpreter version with different compiler
> versions.
>> As for the high level: what if the training set used for PGO in Xenial
> has become skewed or inadequate? Just a thought, as it would imply
> that PGO+LTO uses wrong information for code placement and other
> optimizations.
>> Regards
>> Antoine.
>
Indeed, this is something that is in the history of the LP bug so here is the
URL where those comparison can be found :
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MyNBPVZlBeic1OLqVKe_bcPk2deO_pQs9trIfOFefM0/edit#gid=2034603487
Hope it can help,
Kind regards,
...Louis
--
Louis Bouchard
Software engineer, Cloud & Sustaining eng.
Canonical Ltd
Ubuntu developer Debian Maintainer
GPG : 429D 7A3B DD05 B6F8 AF63 B9C4 8B3D 867C 823E 7A61
