George Rimar via llvm-dev
2016-Jan-15 23:59 UTC
[llvm-dev] HA: LLD benchmark results for all commits
> Well, from November 1st to the end of December, the linker got slower by about 10%, but you cannot attribute that decrease to any single change. That's the result of accumulation, and that's why I wrote it tends to getting slower. All the accumulation was offset by a single change, which is the string table optimization patch, though.Ok. There are few wierds also. 257731 "[ELF/AArch64] Support R_AARCH64_LDST128_ABS_LO12_NC relocation." looks to have 0.425998862 link time what is greater than previous 0.415870616. I dont think its because of this lld changes. So i guess other llvm code also affects. Best regards, George.
Davide Italiano via llvm-dev
2016-Jan-16 00:04 UTC
[llvm-dev] HA: LLD benchmark results for all commits
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 3:59 PM, George Rimar via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:>> Well, from November 1st to the end of December, the linker got slower by about 10%, but you cannot attribute that decrease to any single change. That's the result of accumulation, and that's why I wrote it tends to getting slower. All the accumulation was offset by a single change, which is the string table optimization patch, though.Thanks for doing this Rui!> > Ok. > There are few wierds also. > 257731 "[ELF/AArch64] Support R_AARCH64_LDST128_ABS_LO12_NC relocation." looks to have 0.425998862 link time what is greater than previous 0.415870616. > I dont think its because of this lld changes. So i guess other llvm code also affects. >That's about 2% which I'm inclined to think it could be just noise. -- Davide "There are no solved problems; there are only problems that are more or less solved" -- Henri Poincare
Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev
2016-Jan-16 00:08 UTC
[llvm-dev] HA: LLD benchmark results for all commits
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Davide Italiano <davide at freebsd.org> wrote:> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 3:59 PM, George Rimar via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Well, from November 1st to the end of December, the linker got slower > by about 10%, but you cannot attribute that decrease to any single change. > That's the result of accumulation, and that's why I wrote it tends to > getting slower. All the accumulation was offset by a single change, which > is the string table optimization patch, though. > > Thanks for doing this Rui! > > > > > Ok. > > There are few wierds also. > > 257731 "[ELF/AArch64] Support R_AARCH64_LDST128_ABS_LO12_NC relocation." > looks to have 0.425998862 link time what is greater than previous > 0.415870616. > > I dont think its because of this lld changes. So i guess other llvm code > also affects. > > > > That's about 2% which I'm inclined to think it could be just noise. >I agree with that. If one result happens to be 1% faster and the next one is 1% slower, they differ by 2%. We need to take data points around them to draw a conclusion. But the data point is at very end of the graph which we do not have enough points around it, so I think it is risky to get any conclusion from it.> -- > Davide > > "There are no solved problems; there are only problems that are more > or less solved" -- Henri Poincare >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160115/834f6e4d/attachment.html>