>
>
>>
>> yes -- for count representation, 64 bit is needed. The branch weight
>> here is different and does not needs to be 64bit to represent branch
>> probability precisely.
>
>
> Actually, the branch weights are really counts.No -- I think that is our original proposal (including changing the
meaning of MD_prof meta data) :).Sure. Though they kind of are. They get massaged and smoothed when
branch_weights are placed from the raw counts, but for sufficiently small
values they are very close to counts.
right.
>They get converted to
> frequencies. For frequencies, we don't really need 64bits, as they're
> just
> comparative values that can be squished into 32bits. It's the branch
> weights being 32 bit quantities that are throwing off the calculations.Do you still see the issue after fixing bhe bug (limit without scaling) in
BranchProbabilityInfo::calcMetadataWeights ?That's the fix I was contemplating initially. I was curious at whether
moving to 64bit would make this easier.
It is certainly easier but with a cost 
david