On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:> On 19 November 2015 at 19:08, Steve King via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> Does the community have bots or humans tracking code size for -Os >> builds? > > Hi Steve, > > I still haven't got around doing a CI for EEMBC or SPEC on ARM. I do > track performance every release, but not code size at -Os. > >> I've noticed troubling regressions lately. Sometime near Nov >> 5, the EEMBC bitmnp01 benchmark grew by 25% for ARMv7m and 35% for >> i586. That's ghastly. This week, the EEMBC matrix01 workload grew by >> 5% for ARMv7m and 3% for i586. > > Hum, v7M is even lower priority for me at the moment. :) > > Though, I have to say, 25% is really bad. Can you bisect to see which > commit was that?Hi Renato, Thanks for advising. The commit is: [llvm] r252152 - [SimplifyCFG] Tweak heuristic for merging conditional stores Can this be reverted until the surprising code size impact is understood? I'm about to leave for the week, so I can't delve further anytime soon. Regards, -steve
James Molloy via llvm-dev
2015-Nov-21 00:04 UTC
[llvm-dev] Recent -Os code size regressions
Hi Steve, That commit gives significant performance improvements, so I'm not happy reverting it because of the code size increase. A lot of the code size increase is backend dependent, and I have a set of patches that improves the codegen drastically on ARM at least. The midend is generating better code, and more optimisable code (and it's about 30% more performance too). James On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 at 00:01, Steve King <steve at metrokings.com> wrote:> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> > wrote: > > On 19 November 2015 at 19:08, Steve King via llvm-dev > > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Does the community have bots or humans tracking code size for -Os > >> builds? > > > > Hi Steve, > > > > I still haven't got around doing a CI for EEMBC or SPEC on ARM. I do > > track performance every release, but not code size at -Os. > > > >> I've noticed troubling regressions lately. Sometime near Nov > >> 5, the EEMBC bitmnp01 benchmark grew by 25% for ARMv7m and 35% for > >> i586. That's ghastly. This week, the EEMBC matrix01 workload grew by > >> 5% for ARMv7m and 3% for i586. > > > > Hum, v7M is even lower priority for me at the moment. :) > > > > Though, I have to say, 25% is really bad. Can you bisect to see which > > commit was that? > > Hi Renato, Thanks for advising. The commit is: > > [llvm] r252152 - [SimplifyCFG] Tweak heuristic for merging conditional > stores > > Can this be reverted until the surprising code size impact is > understood? I'm about to leave for the week, so I can't delve further > anytime soon. > > Regards, > -steve >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151121/4a431e5c/attachment.html>
Smith, Kevin B via llvm-dev
2015-Nov-21 00:50 UTC
[llvm-dev] Recent -Os code size regressions
Maybe adjust this to be different for –Os, -Oz than for –O2? Kevin Smith From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of James Molloy via llvm-dev Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 4:05 PM To: Steve King <steve at metrokings.com>; Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Recent -Os code size regressions Hi Steve, That commit gives significant performance improvements, so I'm not happy reverting it because of the code size increase. A lot of the code size increase is backend dependent, and I have a set of patches that improves the codegen drastically on ARM at least. The midend is generating better code, and more optimisable code (and it's about 30% more performance too). James On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 at 00:01, Steve King <steve at metrokings.com<mailto:steve at metrokings.com>> wrote: On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org<mailto:renato.golin at linaro.org>> wrote:> On 19 November 2015 at 19:08, Steve King via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> Does the community have bots or humans tracking code size for -Os >> builds? > > Hi Steve, > > I still haven't got around doing a CI for EEMBC or SPEC on ARM. I do > track performance every release, but not code size at -Os. > >> I've noticed troubling regressions lately. Sometime near Nov >> 5, the EEMBC bitmnp01 benchmark grew by 25% for ARMv7m and 35% for >> i586. That's ghastly. This week, the EEMBC matrix01 workload grew by >> 5% for ARMv7m and 3% for i586. > > Hum, v7M is even lower priority for me at the moment. :) > > Though, I have to say, 25% is really bad. Can you bisect to see which > commit was that?Hi Renato, Thanks for advising. The commit is: [llvm] r252152 - [SimplifyCFG] Tweak heuristic for merging conditional stores Can this be reverted until the surprising code size impact is understood? I'm about to leave for the week, so I can't delve further anytime soon. Regards, -steve -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151121/7657bea4/attachment.html>