Am Montag, den 12.05.2008, 10:48 -0700 schrieb Chris Lattner:> On May 12, 2008, at 10:19 AM, Joachim Durchholz wrote: > > > > > Am Montag, den 12.05.2008, 09:08 -0700 schrieb Devang Patel: > >> On May 12, 2008, at 2:59 AM, Pertti Kellomäki wrote: > >> > >>> 2) What is the relative performance of code generated by LLVM > >>> and gcc respectively? > >> > >> See llvm.org/nightlytest > > > > Which does not compare GCC vs. LLVM. (I haven't seen this announced as > > the nightly tester's purpose either.) > > Sure it does. See the GCC/LLC columns.I must be particularly blind to not find these. Here is where I looked: URL is http://llvm.org/nightlytest/ . Machine (actually test configuration) names are links; following any of these leads me to a URL like http://llvm.org/nightlytest/machine.php?machine=230 . No GCC nor LLC column though.> >> Many testers > > > > 4 machines with a total of 15 comparisons have been reporting on a > > regular basis. > > Sorry, but this is far from "many". > > I count 12 testers reporting in the last day alone.I based that on the "Test machines with recent submissions" section of http://llvm.org/nightlytest . I see 16 reports there. (Yesterday, I didn't count S3_AMD64 in because it had just three results, but it seems that it is reporting on a regular basis.) I had tried to group machines by tester, giving me four (now five) names: lattner, grawp, grue, laurov, and s3lap.> What specifically > are you looking for? If you care about a specific metric, you should > measure it yourself.Sorry. I think there's some lingering frustration on my side at work. I had tried to get the nightly tester to run, found it difficult, had postponed it until I find the time to properly diagnose the problems, and now I find that my entire project was stalled because of this. The concrete problem is that Ubuntu's way of doing cross compilations seems incompatible with LLVM's way of using the autoconf machinery. I've been told that this is Ubuntu's fault, but I'm sceptical: I have seen LLVM's autoconf do things that autoconf shouldn't do if properly set up. Unfortunately, nobody stepped up to clear this up, and I'm increasingly frustrated because I've been lacking the time to do it myself. Devang's answer didn't seem to give any of the information he claimed it would, and that simply tipped me off. Sorry again, I didn't intend to vent my frustration. Regards, Jo
On May 13, 2008, at 12:42 AM, Joachim Durchholz wrote:> > I must be particularly blind to not find these. > > Here is where I looked: > > URL is http://llvm.org/nightlytest/ . > Machine (actually test configuration) names are links; following any > of > these leads me to a URL like > http://llvm.org/nightlytest/machine.php?machine=230 . No GCC nor LLC > column though. >Each row in that table is a separate nightly run. If you click on "view details" for any particular run, and then "See Full Test Results", you'll get the output complete w/ GCC/LLC column. --Owen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4260 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20080513/10f79db9/attachment.bin>
On May 12, 2008, at 10:42 PM, Joachim Durchholz wrote:>> What specifically >> are you looking for? If you care about a specific metric, you should >> measure it yourself. > > Sorry. > > I think there's some lingering frustration on my side at work. I had > tried to get the nightly tester to run, found it difficult, had > postponed it until I find the time to properly diagnose the problems, > and now I find that my entire project was stalled because of this.Surely you must appreciate that it isn't our problem :). LLVM is an open source project. As such, you should consider all the people responding to your mails and doing stuff for you as volenteers. We are not slaves, we are people trying to help you out. Please be courteous as you would be to anyone else you are asking a favor of.> The concrete problem is that Ubuntu's way of doing cross compilations > seems incompatible with LLVM's way of using the autoconf machinery. > I've been told that this is Ubuntu's fault, but I'm sceptical: I have > seen LLVM's autoconf do things that autoconf shouldn't do if properly > set up. > Unfortunately, nobody stepped up to clear this up, and I'm > increasingly > frustrated because I've been lacking the time to do it myself.Ok. This is an open source project, which means you either do it yourself, convince someone to help you, or pay someone to do it for you. I strongly encourage you to word your emails politely, which increases chances of someone stepping forward to help you. I know nothing about ubuntu, or it's cross compilation scheme. If you would like some help, please describe in detail what the problem is.> Devang's answer didn't seem to give any of the information he > claimed it > would, and that simply tipped me off. > > Sorry again, I didn't intend to vent my frustration.Everyone has a bad day, no worries. -Chris
On May 12, 2008, at 10:42 PM, Joachim Durchholz wrote:> The concrete problem is that Ubuntu's way of doing cross compilations > seems incompatible with LLVM's way of using the autoconf machinery. > I've been told that this is Ubuntu's fault, but I'm sceptical: I have > seen LLVM's autoconf do things that autoconf shouldn't do if properly > set up. > Unfortunately, nobody stepped up to clear this up, and I'm > increasingly > frustrated because I've been lacking the time to do it myself. >Sorry to step into this in the middle of a thread, but what exactly is LLVM's autoconf doing that "autoconf shouldn't do if properly set up"? I have some experience with autoconf. I don't know if I've ever seen one "properly set up" before. :-) It's a tool that is used so that one can do their best to fit the compilation to a machine and its environment. As such, it's not great, but is frequently adequate for the job. -bw
Am Dienstag, den 13.05.2008, 00:42 -0700 schrieb Bill Wendling:> Sorry to step into this in the middle of a thread, but what exactly is > LLVM's autoconf doing that "autoconf shouldn't do if properly set up"?1) Variables like CC, CXX, CFLAGS don't work properly when submitted via the command line. The handling seems to be inconsistent, i.e. it seems that parts of the toolchain receive these flags, others don't. This is just a cosmetic problem, of course. 2) The setting of --build should be the default for --host, and the value of --host should be the default for --target. The build machinery seems to take the defaults for --host and --target from elsewhere, specifying just --build or --host will cause amd64 assembly to be fed to an assembler running in i686 mode. 3) On a 64-bit Ubuntu, setting --build/host/target=i686-pc-linux-gnu will work when compiling with gcc, but llvm-gcc will try to feed 64-bit machine code to the assembler in this situation. At least that's what happens when bootstrapping. 4) I also dimly recall having seen llvm-gcc use 64-bit library paths for linking the 32-bit binaries (with ensuing hilarity, of course). I had postponed further investigation with this issue until after I'd get the assembly stage working - this approach had worked well with gcc, too. I'm under the impression that problems 1-3 are caused by autoconf as used in LLVM. I don't know about problem 4; it might be because Ubuntu's handling of library paths is inherently broken, or it might be a consequence of problem 3. If autoconf in LLVM can be cleaned up, I'd be really like to do it. Having expertise in that area might just be what's been missing, so if you're willing to give a helping hand to an autoconf newbie, this might finally work out.> I have some experience with autoconf. I don't know if I've ever seen > one "properly set up" before. :-)I can understand that, it's a beast and few if any people ever set it up for cross compilation anyway. I assume that a cross compilation capable tool like LLVM needs a particularly careful setup in autoconf to avoid breakage like the above. Regards, Jo