On Monday 17 December 2007 19:48, Chris Lattner wrote:> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007, David Greene wrote: > > On Monday 17 December 2007 13:39, Evan Cheng wrote: > >> My only concern is the potential compile time impact. Do you see any? > > > > I don't notice any, but then I'm not particularly looking for that > > either. I'll run some tests. > > Thanks. 5% slowdowns are generally not noticable, but we care :)After some very simple testing, I see slowdowns of around 1.7%. I assume this is ok, but want to check.> Re licensing, we have no problem slurping in boost code. Please do make > it follow the LLVM standards (80 cols and a doxygen comment above each > class saying what it is for). For an example of how to do the license, > see include/llvm/ADT/scoped_ptr.h.No problem. -Dave
On Dec 20, 2007, at 2:43 PM, David Greene wrote:> On Monday 17 December 2007 19:48, Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007, David Greene wrote: >>> On Monday 17 December 2007 13:39, Evan Cheng wrote: >>>> My only concern is the potential compile time impact. Do you see >>>> any? >>> >>> I don't notice any, but then I'm not particularly looking for that >>> either. I'll run some tests. >> >> Thanks. 5% slowdowns are generally not noticable, but we care :) > > After some very simple testing, I see slowdowns of around 1.7%. I > assume > this is ok, but want to check.Can you clarify? Is this 1.7% slowdown of scheduling time or overall codegen time? If it's the later, then it seems a bit too much. Also, please test it with all the MultiSource/Applications. Thanks, Evan> >> Re licensing, we have no problem slurping in boost code. Please >> do make >> it follow the LLVM standards (80 cols and a doxygen comment above >> each >> class saying what it is for). For an example of how to do the >> license, >> see include/llvm/ADT/scoped_ptr.h. > > No problem. > > -Dave > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
On Saturday 22 December 2007 02:33, Evan Cheng wrote:> > After some very simple testing, I see slowdowns of around 1.7%. I > > assume > > this is ok, but want to check. > > Can you clarify? Is this 1.7% slowdown of scheduling time or overall > codegen time? If it's the later, then it seems a bit too much. Also, > please test it with all the MultiSource/Applications.It's 1.7% overall. Does the nightly test build provide compile-time information? I see from the Makefile that it uses -time-passes. I assume the "Today's LLC compile" header on the nightly page comes from that and reflects the compile time for the test. -Dave