search for: amgmk

...7% MultiSource/Benchmarks/TSVC/CrossingThresholds-flt/CrossingThresholds-flt 2.65% SingleSource/UnitTests/Vectorizer/gcc-loops 2.63% Performance Improvements - Execution Time  (ISL over Cloog) MultiSource/Benchmarks/TSVC/NodeSplitting-flt/NodeSplitting-flt -6.77% MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASC_Sequoia/AMGmk/AMGmk -3.03% However, ISL outperforms Cloog in compile-time performance.  With ISL code generator, 22 benchmarks have >10% compile-time performance improvement over Cloog. Top 10 improvements are shown as follows: Performance Improvements - Compile Time (ISL over Cloog) MultiSource/Benchmarks/...

...s/Olden/perimeter/perimeter > 6.87% > > MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/consumer-typeset/consumer-typeset 6.02% > > MultiSource/Benchmarks/Trimaran/enc-pc1/enc-pc1 > 5.59% > > MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASC_Sequoia/AMGmk/AMGmk > 5.03% > > SPEC2k6 > > 453.povray 17.11% > > 482.sphinx3 3.44% > > 444.namd 2.89% > > Improvements: execution time decrease > > LNT > > MultiSource/Benchmarks/BitBench/uudecode/uudecode -50.90% >...

...loop, compile_time(+6355.56%), execution_time(-99.21%) SingleSource/Benchmarks/Polybench/stencils/seidel-2d/seidel-2d, compile_time(+1275.00%), execution_time (0%) SingleSource/Benchmarks/Shootout-C++/nestedloop, compile_time(+1155.56%), execution_time(-99.23%) MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASC_Sequoia/AMGmk/AMGmk, compile_time(+491.80%), execution_time (0%) SingleSource/UnitTests/Vector/multiplies, compile_time(+350.00%), execution_time(-13.64%) SingleSource/Benchmarks/Stanford/Puzzle, compile_time(+345.45%), execution_time(-40.91%) SingleSource/Benchmarks/Polybench/linear-algebra/kernels/2mm/2mm,...

...perimeter > 6.87% > > MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/consumer-typeset/consumer-typeset 6.02% > > MultiSource/Benchmarks/Trimaran/enc-pc1/enc-pc1 > 5.59% > > MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASC_Sequoia/AMGmk/AMGmk > 5.03% > > SPEC2k6 > > 453.povray 17.11% > > 482.sphinx3 3.44% > > 444.namd 2.89% > > Improvements: execution time decrease > > LNT > > MultiSource/Benchmarks/BitBench/uudecode/uudeco...

On 08/10/2013 06:59 PM, Star Tan wrote: > Hi all, > > I have evaluated Polly's performance on LLVM test-suite with latest LLVM (r188054) and Polly (r187981). Results can be viewed on: http://188.40.87.11:8000. Hi Star Tan, thanks for the update. > There are mainly five new tests and each test is run with 10 samples: > clang (run id = 27): clang -O3 > pollyBasic (run id =

Hi all, I have evaluated Polly's performance on LLVM test-suite with latest LLVM (r188054) and Polly (r187981).  Results can be viewed on: http://188.40.87.11:8000. There are mainly five new tests and each test is run with 10 samples: clang (run id = 27):  clang -O3 pollyBasic (run id = 28):  clang -O3 -load LLVMPolly.so pollyNoGen (run id = 29):  pollycc -O3 -mllvm -polly-optimizer=none

Hi all, I've started looking at the GlobalMerge pass, enabled by default on ARM and AArch64. I think we should reconsider that, at least for AArch64. As is, the pass just merges all globals together, in groups of 4KB (AArch64, 128B on ARM). At the time it was enabled, the general thinking was "it's almost free, it doesn't affect performance much, we might as well use it".

tl;dr in low data situations we don’t look at past information, and that increases the false positive regression rate. We should look at the possibly incorrect recent past runs to fix that. Motivation: LNT’s current regression detection system has false positive rate that is too high to make it useful. With test suites as large as the llvm “test-suite” a single report will show hundreds of

....32% cumulative (2.32% - 133.59s this program) nts.MultiSource/Applications/lua/lua.exec > 6. 28.26% cumulative (1.94% - 111.80s this program) nts.MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASC_Sequoia/IRSmk/IRSmk.exec > 7. 30.11% cumulative (1.85% - 106.56s this program) nts.MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASC_Sequoia/AMGmk/AMGmk.exec > 8. 31.60% cumulative (1.49% - 86.00s this program) nts.SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/huffbench.exec > 9. 32.75% cumulative (1.15% - 66.37s this program) nts.MultiSource/Benchmarks/TSVC/NodeSplitting-dbl/NodeSplitting-dbl.exec > 10. 33.90% cumulative (1.15% - 66.13s thi...

.../Benchmarks/MallocBench/gs/gs | * | * | MultiSource/Benchmarks/MallocBench/cfrac/cfrac | * | * | MultiSource/Benchmarks/PAQ8p/paq8p | * | * | MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASC_Sequoia/AMGmk/AMGmk | * | * | MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASC_Sequoia/IRSmk/IRSmk | * | * | MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASC_Sequoia/CrystalMk/CrystalMk | * | * | MultiSource/Benchmarks/Fhourstones/fhourstones...

...-0.9615384615384 Benchmarks/TSVC/LoopRerolling-dbl/LoopRerol 2.7783 2.7524 -0.9322247417485 Benchmarks/SciMark2-C/scimark2 22.2684 22.0824 -0.8352643207414 Benchmarks/mediabench/g721/g721encode/encod 0.0403 0.04 -0.7444168734491 Benchmarks/ASC_Sequoia/AMGmk/AMGmk 5.0381 5.0033 -0.6907365872054 Benchmarks/TSVC/GlobalDataFlow-dbl/GlobalDa 2.3246 2.3089 -0.6753850124752 Applications/sgefa/sgefa 0.0962 0.0956 -0.6237006237006 Applications/minisat/minisat 4.021 4.0023 -...

Greetings everyone! The new pass manager is getting extremely close to the point where I'm not aware of any significant outstanding work needed, and I'd like to see what else would be needed to enable it by default. Here are the current functionality I'm aware of outstanding: 1) Does not do non-trivial loop unswitching. Majority of this is in https://reviews.llvm.org/D34200 but will

Andy and I briefly discussed this the other day, we have not yet got chance to list a detailed pass order for the pre- and post- IPO scalar optimizations. This is wish-list in our mind: pre-IPO: based on the ordering he propose, get rid of the inlining (or just inline tiny func), get rid of all loop xforms... post-IPO: get rid of inlining, or maybe we still need it, only

....629074283| 0.51|27893655301| -0.74|5.646465274| 0.2|27893655288| -0.74| |MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASCI_Purple/SMG2000/smg2000.test | 40|1.471894927| 5845153953|1.464805189| 0.48| 5856337655| -0.19|1.465630801| 0.43| 5856337654| -0.19| |MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASC_Sequoia/AMGmk/AMGmk.test | 40|4.794886583|38013036990|4.579802023| 4.7|38512062691| -1.3|4.577213823| 4.76|38512062692| -1.3| |MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASC_Sequoia/CrystalMk/CrystalMk.test | 40|2.942015001|26934039129|2.943005397| -0.03|26934039124| 0|2.94...

...7 | 0.99    0.98    n/a          n/a > MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASCI_Purple/SMG2000/smg2000                       | > 2.9899 498940   3.0500      *                2.2999      |    4.51    4.23 >  4.44 *           6.71 | 1.07    1.02    n/a          n/a > MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASC_Sequoia/AMGmk/AMGmk                           | > 0.0999 14168    0.0800      *                0.0799      |   15.60   15.84 > 15.72 *          15.78 | 0.98    0.99    n/a          n/a > MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASC_Sequoia/CrystalMk/CrystalMk                   | > 0.0500 8296     0.0500      *        ...

Hi Tanya, > 1) Compile llvm from source and untar the llvm-test in the projects > directory (name it llvm-test or test-suite). Choose to use a > pre-compiled llvm-gcc or re-compile it yourself. I compiled llvm and llvm-gcc with separate objects directories. Platform is x86_64-linux-gnu. > 2) Run make check, report any failures (FAIL or unexpected pass). Note > that you need to

....98 n/a n/a > MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASCI_Purple/SMG2000/ > smg2000 | 2.9899 498940 3.0500 > * 2.2999 | 4.51 4.23 4.44 * > 6.71 | 1.07 1.02 n/a n/a > MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASC_Sequoia/AMGmk/ > AMGmk | 0.0999 14168 0.0800 > * 0.0799 | 15.60 15.84 15.72 * > 15.78 | 0.98 0.99 n/a n/a > MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASC_Sequoia/CrystalMk/ > CrystalMk | 0.0500 8296 0.0500...

...9.4247 0.0097 > MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C/loader/loader.compile > <http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/simple/nts/380/graph?pset.0=on&test.MultiSource%2FBenchmarks%2FProlangs-C%2Floader%2Floader.compile=on> > 1.56% 0.3267 0.3318 0.0008 > MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASC_Sequoia/AMGmk/AMGmk.compile > <http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/simple/nts/380/graph?pset.0=on&test.MultiSource%2FBenchmarks%2FASC_Sequoia%2FAMGmk%2FAMGmk.compile=on> > 1.56% 0.4693 0.4766 0.0014 > MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/office-ispell/office-ispell.compile > <http://llvm.org/perf/...

Hi Tobias and all Polly developers, I have re-evaluated the Polly compile-time performance using newest LLVM/Polly source code. You can view the results on http://188.40.87.11:8000. Especially, I also evaluated our r187102 patch file that avoids expensive failure string operations in normal execution. Specifically, I evaluated two cases for it: Polly-NoCodeGen: clang -O3 -load

LLVMers, 2.6 pre-release2 is ready to be tested by the community. http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.6/ If you have time, I'd appreciate anyone who can help test the release. To test llvm-gcc: 1) Compile llvm from source and untar the llvm-test in the projects directory (name it llvm-test or test-suite). Choose to use a pre- compiled llvm-gcc or re-compile it yourself. 2) Run make check,