search for: arrayresolut

...---------------------------------------------------- Overall impression: 1) CBE code is already rather quicker then GCC 2) LLC code is rather slower then CBE, but comparable to GCC BTW, guys, why not to focus more attention on slow tests like SPEC/CFP2000/179.art/179.art or UnitTests/2002-10-09-ArrayResolution? or maybe it is already under hard work? :) --- Valery A.Khamenya

...3 SingleSource/UnitTests/2002-05-02-ManyArguments SingleSource/UnitTests/2002-05-03-NotTest SingleSource/UnitTests/2002-05-19-DivTest SingleSource/UnitTests/2002-08-02-CastTest SingleSource/UnitTests/2002-08-02-CastTest2 SingleSource/UnitTests/2002-08-19-CodegenBug SingleSource/UnitTests/2002-10-09-ArrayResolution SingleSource/UnitTests/2002-10-12-StructureArgs SingleSource/UnitTests/2002-10-12-StructureArgsSimple SingleSource/UnitTests/2002-10-13-BadLoad SingleSource/UnitTests/2002-12-13-MishaTest SingleSource/UnitTests/2003-04-22-Switch SingleSource/UnitTests/2003-05-02-DependentPHI SingleSource/UnitTes...

...ere the LLVM optimizer is doing really good things, such as C++ programs. Right now with the linear scan allocator on the X86, I would say that LLC generates is 20->50% slower code than the C backend. > BTW, guys, why not to focus more attention on slow > tests like: UnitTests/2002-10-09-ArrayResolution? This one is just noise, if you look today it's 1.0's straight across the board. Also note that the test runs for 0.003 seconds, which is the resolution of the time command on the system the program is being run on: this is not a good test for checking performance. :) > SPEC/CFP20...

...ce/UnitTests/2006-12-11-LoadConstants | * | * | SingleSource/UnitTests/2003-05-26-Shorts | * | * | SingleSource/UnitTests/2007-04-25-weak | * | * | SingleSource/UnitTests/2002-10-09-ArrayResolution | * | * | SingleSource/UnitTests/block-byref-cxxobj-test | * | * | SingleSource/UnitTests/2008-07-13-InlineSetjmp | * | * | SingleSource/UnitTests/2006-01-23-UnionInit...

...* 0.00 | - - n/a n/a SingleSource/UnitTests/2002-08-19-CodegenBug | 0.0027 528 0.0019 * 0.0019 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 * 0.00 | - - n/a n/a SingleSource/UnitTests/2002-10-09-ArrayResolution | 0.0027 596 0.0025 * 0.0024 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 * 0.01 | - - n/a n/a SingleSource/UnitTests/2002-10-12-StructureArgs | 0.0035 988 0.0031 * 0.0029 |...

...* 0.01 | - - n/a n/a SingleSource/UnitTests/2002-08-19-CodegenBug | 0.0000 512 0.0000 * 0.0000 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 * 0.01 | - - n/a n/a SingleSource/UnitTests/2002-10-09-ArrayResolution | 0.0040 592 0.0000 * 0.0040 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 * 0.01 | - - n/a n/a SingleSource/UnitTests/2002-10-12-StructureArgs | 0.0000 988 0.0040 * 0.0000 |...

LLVMers, The 2.2 prerelease is now available for testing: http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.2/ If anyone can help test this release, I ask that you do the following: 1) Build llvm and llvm-gcc (or use a binary). You may build release (default) or debug. You may pick llvm-gcc-4.0, llvm-gcc-4.2, or both. 2) Run 'make check'. 3) In llvm-test, run 'make TEST=nightly report'. 4) When

...* 0.01 | - - n/a n/a SingleSource/UnitTests/2002-08-19-CodegenBug | 0.0048 520 0.0014 * 0.0014 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 * 0.01 | - - n/a n/a SingleSource/UnitTests/2002-10-09-ArrayResolution | 0.0034 584 0.0084 * 0.0021 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 * 0.02 | - - n/a n/a SingleSource/UnitTests/2002-10-12-StructureArgs | 0.0065 980 0.0026 * 0.0066 |...

...* 0.00 | - - n/a n/a SingleSource/UnitTests/2002-08-19-CodegenBug | 0.0008 552 0.0009 * 0.0009 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 * 0.00 | - - n/a n/a SingleSource/UnitTests/2002-10-09-ArrayResolution | 0.0013 624 0.0013 * 0.0013 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 * 0.00 | - - n/a n/a SingleSource/UnitTests/2002-10-12-StructureArgs | 0.0014 1012 0.0013 * 0.0013 |...

...01 | -       -       n/a          n/a > SingleSource/UnitTests/2002-08-19-CodegenBug                             | > 0.0100 568      0.0000      *                0.0000      |    0.00    0.00 >  0.01 *           0.00 | -       -       n/a          n/a > SingleSource/UnitTests/2002-10-09-ArrayResolution                        | > 0.0000 644      0.0100      *                0.0000      |    0.01    0.00 >  0.01 *           0.00 | -       -       n/a          n/a > SingleSource/UnitTests/2002-10-12-StructureArgs                          | > 0.0000 636      0.0000      *              ...

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

...n/a n/a > SingleSource/UnitTests/2002-08-19- > CodegenBug | 0.0100 568 0.0000 > * 0.0000 | 0.00 0.00 0.01 * > 0.00 | - - n/a n/a > SingleSource/UnitTests/2002-10-09- > ArrayResolution | 0.0000 644 0.0100 > * 0.0000 | 0.01 0.00 0.01 * > 0.00 | - - n/a n/a > SingleSource/UnitTests/2002-10-12- > StructureArgs | 0.0000 636 0.0000 >...

LLVMers, The 2.1 pre-release (version 1) is available for testing: http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.1/version1/ I'm looking for members of the LLVM community to test the 2.1 release. There are 2 ways you can help: 1) Download llvm-2.1, llvm-test-2.1, and the appropriate llvm-gcc4.0 binary. Run "make check" and the full llvm-test suite (make TEST=nightly report). 2) Download

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,

LLVMers, The 2.5 pre-release is available for testing: http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.5/ If you have time, I'd appreciate anyone who can help test the release. Please do the following: 1) Download/compile llvm source, and either compile llvm-gcc source or use llvm-gcc binary (please compile llvm-gcc with fortran if you can). 2) Run make check, send me the testrun.log 3) Run "make

Hi Stepan, Sorry for the delay. It's great that you are working on MergeFunctions as well and I agree, we should definitely try to combine our efforts to improve MergeFunctions. Just to give you some context, the pass (with the similar function merging patch) is already being used in a production setting. From my point of view, it would be better if we focus on improving its capability

...4213 0 0.01 4213 2002-05-03-NotTest.ll 3 6111 0 0.01 6102 0 0.01 6102 2002-05-19-DivTest.ll 3 3553 0 0.01 3544 0 0.01 3544 2002-08-02-CastTest2.ll 2 2144 0 0.01 2135 0 0.01 2135 2002-08-02-CastTest.ll 2 1777 0 0.01 1768 0 0.01 1768 2002-08-19-CodegenBug.ll 1 2750 0 0.01 2741 0 0.01 2741 2002-10-09-ArrayResolution.ll 1 2442 0 0.01 2433 0 0.01 2433 2002-10-12-StructureArgs.ll 2 3914 0 0.01 3905 0 0.01 3905 2002-10-12-StructureArgsSimple.ll 2 2813 0 0.01 2804 0 0.01 2804 2002-10-13-BadLoad.ll 2 1695 0 0.01 1686 0 0.01 1686 2002-12-13-MishaTest.ll 2 4568 0 0.01 4559 0 0.01 4559 2003-04-22-Switch.ll 2 3916 0...