Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:26:50 02/16/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 2005 at 15:57:46, Andrew Williams wrote: >On February 16, 2005 at 15:33:24, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On February 16, 2005 at 14:28:57, Dieter Buerssner wrote: >> >>>On February 16, 2005 at 13:19:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On February 16, 2005 at 13:09:14, Frank Phillips wrote: >>> >>>>>I have been using the profile generated optimisation option, but the code it >>>>>produces is no faster then with simple -O3. >>> >>>I have no experience on AMD64. On x86 it works well for me, under Linux and >>>Windows. >>> >>>>ICC (Intel's compiler) works fine and that is what I use >>>>myself. >>> >>>Does profile guided optimizatation with ICC work for you, when you run crafty >>>under xboard. It doesn't work for me. >> >>Never tried. I do my profile runs via a "Make profile" where I have a target >>that compiles for profiling, runs a bunch of test cases, then compiles using the >>data gathered to improve the code. So my profiling is all in "command mode" as >>well, which is just as good since the xboard stuff is not in the search of my >>program at all anyway. >> >> >>> Console runs work fine. With gcc, I can >>>rund a match Yace-Crafty under Xboard. That gave better speedups than >>>test-suites. But no luck with ICC here. I get very modest speedups with PGO and >>>ICC (more with gcc). However, ICC is fast even without PGO. >> >>I can't get gcc to compile and run crafty with profiling optimizations. It will >>produce the profile data files fine, but when I go to re-compile with the >>options to use the profile data, it complains about one or more of the profile >>data files being corrupted. I've tested this hundreds of times since this was >>put into gcc, no luck at all. I seem to recall I might have gotten it to work >>on the opteron last year, but I don't believe there was any speedup if I did, >>and I might well be remembering that wrong anyway. >> >>But gcc won't profile-optimize for me period. although it will profile just fine >>and produce output that helps in analyzing performance. >> >> >> > >I had this phenomenon and I got rid of it by removing an optimization option. >I'm afraid I don't remember which one, but I think it was -fomit_frame_pointer; >I discovered what the problem was while reading a website, which I can no longer >find. > >Andrew I think I did this. It seems to me that -fomit-frame-pointer produces errors when used with any sort of profiling, but I am not sure... I'll try again to see...
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.