search for: 044091

...mmits/Week-of-Mon-20121203/158488.html, the Polyhedron 2005 benchmarks complete again on x86_64-apple-darwin12. The result are similar to what were seen with FSF gcc 4.6.2svn and llvm/dragonegg 3.0 (which was the last release that passed pb05) http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2011-October/044091.html. Jack ps Has an exhaustive effort been made yet to insure that llvm/dragonegg isn't still unnecessarily scalarizing the vector code generated by FSF gcc? If that issue were completely solved, llvm/dragonegg might become faster than vanilla FSF gcc. FSF gcc 4.7.2 with llvm/dragon...

...on-20121203/158488.html, > the Polyhedron 2005 benchmarks complete again on x86_64-apple-darwin12. The result are similar to what > were seen with FSF gcc 4.6.2svn and llvm/dragonegg 3.0 (which was the last release that passed pb05) > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2011-October/044091.html. > Jack > ps Has an exhaustive effort been made yet to insure that llvm/dragonegg isn't still unnecessarily scalarizing > the vector code generated by FSF gcc? As far as I know, no effort has been made at all. If that issue were completely solved, llvm/dragonegg migh...

...x86_64-apple-darwin11 built against Xcode 4.3.2 and FSF gcc 4.6.3. > > thanks for the numbers. How does this compare to LLVM 3.0 - were there any > regressions? The results from just before llvm/dragonegg 3.0 was released are at... http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2011-October/044091.html It does look as if the ac benchmark has been regressed from 10.80 sec in llvm/dragonegg 3.0 to 12.45 sec in llvm/dragonegg 3.1. These are slightly different FSF gcc 4.6 releases (4.6.2svn vs 4.6.3 but I would be shocked if that was the origin of the performance regression). The results for...

...t;> 4.3.2 and FSF gcc 4.6.3. > > > > thanks for the numbers. How does this compare to LLVM 3.0 - were > > there any regressions? > > The results from just before llvm/dragonegg 3.0 was released are at... > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2011-October/044091.html > > It does look as if the ac benchmark has been regressed from 10.80 sec > in llvm/dragonegg 3.0 to 12.45 sec in llvm/dragonegg 3.1. These are > slightly different FSF gcc 4.6 releases (4.6.2svn vs 4.6.3 but I would > be shocked if that was the origin of the performance regres...

Hi Jack, > Attached are the Polyhedron 2005 benchmark results for current llvm/dragonegg svn > on x86_64-apple-darwin11 built against Xcode 4.3.2 and FSF gcc 4.6.3. thanks for the numbers. How does this compare to LLVM 3.0 - were there any regressions? Ciao, Duncan. The benchmarks > for -msse3 and -msse4 appear identical (at least for degg+optnz). This is fortunate > since

...; > > > > > thanks for the numbers. How does this compare to LLVM 3.0 - were > > > there any regressions? > > > > The results from just before llvm/dragonegg 3.0 was released are at... > > > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2011-October/044091.html > > > > It does look as if the ac benchmark has been regressed from 10.80 sec > > in llvm/dragonegg 3.0 to 12.45 sec in llvm/dragonegg 3.1. These are > > slightly different FSF gcc 4.6 releases (4.6.2svn vs 4.6.3 but I would > > be shocked if that was the origin...

Attached are the Polyhedron 2005 benchmark results for current llvm/dragonegg svn on x86_64-apple-darwin11 built against Xcode 4.3.2 and FSF gcc 4.6.3. The benchmarks for -msse3 and -msse4 appear identical (at least for degg+optnz). This is fortunate since there seems to be a bug in -msse4 on 2.33 GHz (T7600) Intel Core 2 Duo Merom (http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=12434).