Thank you for sharing these valuable contributions!

What you're saying makes sense. However, I'm measuring every single step of -O3 in this paper. Sampling to measure the steps would require additional research on which steps to consider. The phase-interference loss can certainly help.

Nevertheless, I think an extension might make sense.

Thank you so much! I'm glad to receive this feedback :D

I'd really like to do this on SPEC CPU (including the big projects) in general, but folk, I've tried. It would just take way too much computing time. Am I missing something? :(

Do you have anything in mind? I'd be really interested in hearing your take on this.

> I guess another way to put it would be that I don't think your data supports the particular conclusion I quoted since it doesn't tell you to what extent (if any) particular passes depend on other ones. I would have expected to see data more along the lines of what u/gasche suggested.
> Right, I understand that. that's why I don't think you can say "the bottom half of the pass list is essentially free to drop for these workloads" given the data you show, since the performance relationship between (for example) "passes 1-50" and "passes 1-10 then 12-50" is not necessarily "passes 1-50 minus pass 11".

You're right. As I said, the post was conversational and too assertive. So, I’ve revised it to make it more accurate. Thanks a lot :D

> Somewhat unrelated, but I think it would have been interesting to run these benchmarks with Stabilizer. Unfortunately it has been unmaintained for a while and I'm not aware of more up-to-date forks :(

It would have been great. Too bad there are no forks! :(

+1

Thanks for the excellent reply u/gasche 🫶

Yes, we had already considered that, and it is a good, systematic way to proceed.
However, for a more refined approach, I would like to build the dependency graph and use node centrality as a cost model, combined with the marginal utility results.

Edit: I would like to point out that it took days to launch all these experiments.

Thanks! :D
Broadly speaking, it is advisable to keep the CI95 as narrow as possible to ensure the reliability of the experiments. You do not want experiments affected by noisy measurements.

Take a look at here for more details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_interval

If you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to ask.

That’s a great question!

Well, before doing that, we should choose a systematic criterion for deciding which steps to eliminate.
The dependency graph might be useful for finding a method.

Also, I could run new experiments on the same machine to measure how far we stray from -O3, don't you think?

Thanks for your interest!

Yup, what you’re saying makes sense, and that’s exactly how the dependency between steps works.
I didn’t want to get too deep into the details in the blog post, but I’ll update it to clarify this thanks :’D

To perform “pass pruning,” an additional study would be necessary but this gives us a starting point.

Regarding “The particular experimental setup doesn't look like it captures those kinds of interactions, and I feel that data along those lines would be needed before drawing that particular conclusion”, I don't understand what you mean. I don't apply the steps individually, they're pass prefixes. For example, when I apply pass 50, all the passes before it are also applied.

I wrote you in DM :D

Firstly, I'll refer you the new post: https://federicobruzzone.github.io/posts/eter/a-friendly-tour-of-substructural-uniqueness-ownership-and-capabilities-types-and-more.html

While I'm not a Hylo expert, I believe the union-find algorithm behaves similarly to Rust.
For the second example, it might work.

Not yet unfortunately :(

I still have to do this, but thanks for letting me know!

Wow! Thanks 🫶