search for: 640ms

Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "640ms".

Did you mean: 40ms
[LLVMdev] LLVM compile speed significantly slower than GCC (w/ test case)
2012 Jul 19
4
[LLVMdev] LLVM compile speed significantly slower than GCC (w/ test case)
...code. I compiled the file with both compilers for the arm-none-eabi triple. The numbers I get are as follows: GCC (4.5.2, Windows build from CodeSourcery) - With -O0: 110ms, with -O2: 215ms Clang/LLVM (Release mode, LLVM git hash 7f5714f4..., clang git hash 9d9cf5...) - With -O0: 110ms, with -O2: 640ms The compilers are essentially identical for the -O0 case, but when compiling with -O2, LLVM takes almost three times as long as GCC. I'm not sure whether this file is unusual in some way, such that fixing whatever makes this slow wouldn't have much of an effect on other files, or if this...
[LLVMdev] LLVM compile speed significantly slower than GCC (w/ test case)
2012 Jul 19
0
[LLVMdev] LLVM compile speed significantly slower than GCC (w/ test case)
...e with both compilers for the arm-none-eabi triple. > The numbers I get are as follows: > > GCC (4.5.2, Windows build from CodeSourcery) - With -O0: 110ms, with -O2: 215ms > Clang/LLVM (Release mode, LLVM git hash 7f5714f4..., clang git hash > 9d9cf5...) - With -O0: 110ms, with -O2: 640ms > > The compilers are essentially identical for the -O0 case, but when > compiling with -O2, LLVM takes almost three times as long as GCC. > > I'm not sure whether this file is unusual in some way, such that > fixing whatever makes this slow wouldn't have much of an effe...
[LLVMdev] Some MCJIT benchmark numbers
2013 Nov 19
2
[LLVMdev] Some MCJIT benchmark numbers
...xpectation is that that should be negligible compared to the MCJIT time (confirmed through profiling). The absolute numbers are from a Release build with asserts turned off (this made a big difference), and the percentages are from a Release+Profiling build. For 1k iterations, the test took about 640ms on my desktop machine, ie 0.64ms per module. Looking at the profiling results, it looks like about 47% of the time is spent in PassManagerImpl::run, and another 47% is spent in addPassesToEmitMC, which feels like it could be avoided by doing that just once. Of the time spent in PassManagerImpl::r...
[LLVMdev] Some MCJIT benchmark numbers
2013 Nov 19
0
[LLVMdev] Some MCJIT benchmark numbers
...d be > negligible compared to the MCJIT time (confirmed through profiling). The > absolute numbers are from a Release build with asserts turned off (this > made a big difference), and the percentages are from a Release+Profiling > build. > > For 1k iterations, the test took about 640ms on my desktop machine, ie > 0.64ms per module. Looking at the profiling results, it looks like about > 47% of the time is spent in PassManagerImpl::run, and another 47% is spent > in addPassesToEmitMC, which feels like it could be avoided by doing that > just once. Of the time spent i...
[LLVMdev] LLVM compile speed significantly slower than GCC (w/ test case)
2012 Jul 20
1
[LLVMdev] LLVM compile speed significantly slower than GCC (w/ test case)
>> GCC (4.5.2, Windows build from CodeSourcery) - With -O0: 110ms, with -O2: 215ms >> Clang/LLVM (Release mode, LLVM git hash 7f5714f4..., clang git hash >> 9d9cf5...) - With -O0: 110ms, with -O2: 640ms Hi Matt, I only see 2x slowdown on my machine (consistently, O2 and O3), but that's still bad. If you compile to IR then pass "opt -time-passes" you can get a good idea who the culprit is: $ clang -O0 -S -emit-llvm sha1test.c $ opt -time-passes -O2 sha1test.s (...) ---User Time...