search for: ammp

...s for now > > Nigel > ======================================== > To find out more about our work visit our web site: > www.ncl.ac.uk/hopit > ======================================== > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <david.whiting at ncl.ac.uk> > To: <setel.ammp at twiga.com>; "Nigel Unwin" <nigelunwin at hotmail.com> > Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 9:15 AM > Subject: [stuart.leask at nottingham.ac.uk: [R] R in your pocket on a Sharp > Zaurus] > > > > Interesting... and Sharp are coming out with a clam-verison of...

...), and I got these numbers. The ratio is low_reg_pressure/none, that is, the lower the number, the better the performance with low register pressure: CFP2000/177.mesa/177.mesa 1.00 CFP2000/179.art/179.art 0.98 CFP2000/183.equake/183.equake 1.00 CFP2000/188.ammp/188.ammp 0.98 CINT2000/164.gzip/164.gzip 0.97 CINT2000/175.vpr/175.vpr 0.97 CINT2000/176.gcc/176.gcc n/a // crashed! CINT2000/181.mcf/181.mcf 1.02 CINT2000/186.crafty/186.crafty 1.00 CINT2000/197.parser/197.parser...

...;Value * 2:", myvar * 2) } x <- 3 myfunc(x) Name of input var: x Value * 2: 6 So, how do I get that name_of_myvar bit? I've tried looking through the help files and cannot find out how to do this. Any ideas? Thanks, Dave. -- David Whiting Adult Morbidity and Mortality Project (AMMP) PO Box 65243 Aga Khan Foundation Building - Ground Floor Plot No 344 Urambo Street Upanga Dar es Salaam Tanzania Tel: +255 22 2153388 Fax: +255 22 2153385 Email: david.whiting at ncl.ac.uk AMMP website: www.ncl.ac.uk/ammp -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-....

Hi again Sam, Sorry for not replying sooner. I have been ignoring everything for a while to work on the AMMP analysis tool and the continuing saga of migrating the legacy AMMP data. Our consultant has written some programs that take a VERY long time to run :( Anyway, I now know Java and a certain amount of JSP. I hope to be able to get around to this soon. It is all a bit hard now with our data part...

Dear guys, After compiling 188.ammp, one of spec floating point benchmarks, using the linear scan register allocator, I got 34 spills, but only 28 store instructions. These data were given by -stats. Is this number correct? I mean, the number of stores should be equal or greater than the number of spills, shouldn't it? Best rega...

...ved i386 target benefits the most. This is the change in execution time for the SPEC benchmarks that change by more than 3% (minus means faster, plus slower): Targeting i386: -19.3% 164.gzip -12.5% 433.milc -8.8% 473.astar -7.4% 401.bzip2 -6.4% 183.equake -4.9% 456.hmmer -4.6% 186.crafty -4.6% 188.ammp -4.1% 403.gcc -4.0% 256.bzip2 -3.2% 197.parser -3.1% 175.vpr -3.0% 464.h264ref +6.7% 177.mesa With more registers and out-of-order execution hiding the cost of spilling, x86-64 is more mixed. I suspect this architecture is more sensitive to code layout issues than to register allocation: Targetin...

...0.01% 6.02% 39.36% -2.53% SPEC/CFP2000/177.mesa/177.mesa 0.00% 0.00% 14.90% -1.12% SPEC/CFP2000/179.art/179.art 0.00% 0.00% 19.51% 1.22% SPEC/CFP2000/183.equake/183.equake 0.00% -1.85% 3.54% 0.00% SPEC/CFP2000/188.ammp/188.ammp 0.28% -0.18% 48.68% 3.10% SPEC/CFP2006/433.milc/433.milc 0.00% -0.14% 20.31% 2.68% SPEC/CFP2006/444.namd/444.namd 0.04% 0.44% 3.28% 1.40% SPEC/CFP2006/447.dealII/447.dealII 10.61% 13.06% 35.52% 15.01% SPEC/CFP2006/...

...514.00 99.2% test-suite.../Trimaran/enc-pc1/enc-pc1.test 87.00 168.00 93.1% test-suite...ce/Benchmarks/PAQ8p/paq8p.test 35.00 66.00 88.6% test-suite...INT2000/164.gzip/164.gzip.test 23.00 43.00 87.0% test-suite...CFP2000/188.ammp/188.ammp.test 85.00 157.00 84.7% test-suite...pplications/oggenc/oggenc.test 63.00 110.00 74.6% test-suite...T2006/456.hmmer/456.hmmer.test 24.00 41.00 70.8% test-suite.../Benchmarks/Bullet/bullet.test 799.00 1351.00 69...

...1% -3.50% 179.art 6710 5219 5588 28.57% 20.08% 25111 24188 28126 3.82% -10.72% 183.equake 5247 4813 5118 9.02% 2.52% 32539 34011 31431 -4.33% 3.53% 187.facerec 4332 4072 4380 6.39% -1.10% 82061 84290 85737 -2.64% -4.29% 188.ammp 2632 2424 2677 8.58% -1.68% 155976 155712 161403 0.17% -3.36% 189.lucas 5588 3471 5301 60.99% 5.41% 63282 69200 62861 -8.55% 0.67% 191.fma3d 3574 3345 3535 6.85% 1.10% 1140557 1210044 1125430 -5.74% 1.34% 200.sixtrack 1126 1...

...gt; External/Nurbs/nurbs 2.2322 2.2131 0.99 -1% > External/Povray/povray 2.2638 2.2762 1.01 +1% > External/SPEC/CFP2000/177.mesa/177.mesa 1.6675 1.6828 1.01 +1% > External/SPEC/CFP2000/188.ammp/188.ammp 10.9309 11.1191 1.02 +2% > External/SPEC/CFP2006/433.milc/433.milc 6.9214 7.1696 1.04 +4% > External/SPEC/CINT2000/164.gzip/164.gzi 8.5327 8.8114 1.03 +3% > External/SPEC/CINT2000/186.crafty/186.c 4.1266...

...1% -3.50% 179.art 6710 5219 5588 28.57% 20.08% 25111 24188 28126 3.82% -10.72% 183.equake 5247 4813 5118 9.02% 2.52% 32539 34011 31431 -4.33% 3.53% 187.facerec 4332 4072 4380 6.39% -1.10% 82061 84290 85737 -2.64% -4.29% 188.ammp 2632 2424 2677 8.58% -1.68% 155976 155712 161403 0.17% -3.36% 189.lucas 5588 3471 5301 60.99% 5.41% 63282 69200 62861 -8.55% 0.67% 191.fma3d 3574 3345 3535 6.85% 1.10% 1140557 1210044 1125430 -5.74% 1.34% 200.sixtrack 1126 1...

Hi Chandler, Thanks for fixing the problem with the insertps mask. Generally the new shuffle lowering looks promising, however there are some cases where the codegen is now worse causing runtime performance regressions in some of our internal codebase. You have already mentioned how the new shuffle lowering is missing some features; for example, you explicitly said that we currently lack of