search for: benches

Hello everyone I was just porting a project to build against the LLVM 9 apt packages and noticed that the issue I filed and explained during the release phase in https://llvm.org/PR43035 still persists: CMake Error at /usr/lib/llvm-9/lib/cmake/llvm/LLVMExports.cmake:1323 (message):   The imported target "yaml-bench" references the file      "/usr/lib/llvm-9/bin/yaml-bench"

A new pixman release 0.33.2 is now available. This is a release candidate for a stable 0.34.0 release. This release comes after little more than 1 year since the previous release (0.32.6). Therefore, the git log is quite long and there are multiple changes, fixes and enhancements. The main changes are: - ARMv6 - Many fast paths implementations were added - PPC64/PPC64LE - Fix all outstanding

A new pixman release 0.34.0 is now available. This is a major release, following three development releases in the past six months. It contains all the changes detailed in the last three development releases in the 0.33 series. Please note that this release doesn't contain any changes since the previous development version (0.33.6) was released. For those who didn't follow the

Whats wrong here? I was expecting 11 as the result... Thanks in advance. bench <- function(str,...) { func <- function(x) x+10 expr <- list(...)[1] str <- gsub("XXX",expr,str) x <- as.call(gsub("\"","",str)) eval(x) } bench("func(XXX)", "1")

Hi Jing, I am cc ing to LLVMdev (LLVM developer's mailing list). You get more accurate and faster responses that way. <snip> > Actually LLVM is well documented and the coding style is very friendly. We have rarely had problems since we started one month ago. Unfortunately, here comes something I am not very clear, but it is critical to our evaluation. I appreciate if you could

On 02/12/2019 15:21, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: > yaml-bench is shipping in libclang-common-9-dev Ok possible. Though, it adds an unnecessary 46MB to my docker image. > It should be indeed in llvm-9-dev instead. This would hide the problem, right. I am not sure it's is a good solution. Where can we review the build process for the apt packages? On 02/12/2019 15:21, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:

Hi All, I am implementing E-pathPRE in LLVM. The coding part is almost complete and till now it worked fine on my test examples. But, I need to test with some standard bench-marks. Can anyone give me any information about standard bench-marks? or any other standard for testing my pass. Any help on this regards will be appreciated. Thank you and regards, Chayan Sarkar

A new intel-gpu-tools quarterly release is available with the following changes: Library changes: - Changed debugfs handlers to open files for the DRM device in use, for setups with more than one DRM device. (Tomeu Vizoso) - Added support for 4K and audio HDMI EDID injection. (Abdiel Janulgue, Marius Vlad) - Added support for AMDGPU devices. (Chris Wilson) Tools changes: -

Hi I'm using Gluster 3.2.5. After expanding a 2x2 Distributed-Replicate volume to 3x2 and performing a full rebalance fuse clients log the following messages for every directory access: [2012-03-08 10:53:56.953030] I [dht-common.c:524:dht_revalidate_cbk] 1-bfd-dht: mismatching layouts for /linux-3.2.9/tools/power/cpupower/bench [2012-03-08 10:53:56.953065] I

Hi guys, I''m running a freenas domU (FreeBSD 8.3 based, ZFS v28, 2 vcpus mapped to the same HT capable core) to serve storage for all purpose including other domUs running on the same host. I did some study to understand how well it works and the result is kind of confusing. In summary, the network performance between domains on the same host is worse than expected. And NFS service to

Greeting All I am using Filebench benchmark in an "Interactive mode" to test ZFS performance with randomread wordload. My Filebench setting & run results are as follwos ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ filebench> set $filesize=5g filebench> set $dir=/hdd/fs32k filebench> set $iosize=32k filebench> set

Dear useRs, I am stuck with a piece of code and hope you could give me some pointers. My aim is to calculate the lm-regression coefficients of individual stocks against an index. I am interested in both the coefficient and the pval. While I could do this manually for a select hand full, I hope to scale this up say for 30+ stocks (DAX-30, FTSE-100 etc.) to eventually have a matrix of coefficients

Hi, I am trying to build llvm 3.4.2 on Centos 6.6. I am getting this below build error , while building the libcxx. I followed the build procedure based of http://clang.llvm.org/get_started.html. I cannot move to a higher version, Since we need to develop on CentOS 6.6 and LLVM 3.4.2 ,is the last version that supports gcc 3.4.2. Starting from LLVM 3.5.0, there has been a huge jump to gcc 4.7.0.

It's probably PR12517. Looking at the clang binary, it's got a /home/ dir in RPATH: $ objdump -p clang+llvm-3.3rc3-Ubuntu-12.04.2-x86_64/bin/clang | grep RPATH RPATH $ORIGIN/../lib:/home/aadgrand/tmp/LLVM-3.3rc3/rc3/Phase3/Release+Asserts/llvmCore-3.3-rc3.obj/Release+Asserts/bin This will slow things down if the system tries to automount /home/aadgrand. Maybe we should merge r182559

------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Reply-to: "Bench" <PaleBustarde@Qinteraction.com> From: "Bench" <PaleBustarde@Qinteraction.com> To: <gnome@hawaii.rr.com> Subject: Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 14:10:33 -0800 Organization: Qinteraction Philippines, Incorporated dear sir: i have read ur newsgroup message, and it

Hi Bill, I was running some benchmarks and was surprised that the startup performance of your binaries is much worse than the stable binaries for 3.2 I've used: http://llvm.org/releases/3.2/clang+llvm-3.2-x86_64-linux-ubuntu-12.04.tar.gz vs http://llvm.org/pre-releases/3.3/rc3/clang+llvm-3.3rc3-Ubuntu-12.04.2-x86_64.tar.gz On a simple hello.c file: /ssd/bench$ TIMEFORMAT="%E"

Hi all, I am trying to compile R in 64-bit addressing mode under AIX 5.1. Currently, I am using the following. ./configure -without-x CC='xlC_r' F77='xlf_r' CXX='xlC_r' CFLAGS='-q64 -g -qfullpath' FFLAGS='-q64 -g -qfullpath' CXXFLAGS='-q64 -g -qfullpath' MAIN_LDFLAGS='-q64 -g -qfullpath' LDFLAGS='-q64'

Hi all, Sorry for the delay. This implements binary patching of call sites for interrupt-related paravirt ops, since no-doubt Andi wasn't the only one to believe this approach is slow. The benchmarks were done on a UP 3GHz Pentium 4 with 512MB of RAM. 2.6.17-rc4 vs 2.6.17-rc4 with CONFIG_PARAVIRT=y vs 2.6.17-rc4 CONFIG_PARAVIRT=y with patch. Summary: with binary patching, the difference

Hi all, Sorry for the delay. This implements binary patching of call sites for interrupt-related paravirt ops, since no-doubt Andi wasn't the only one to believe this approach is slow. The benchmarks were done on a UP 3GHz Pentium 4 with 512MB of RAM. 2.6.17-rc4 vs 2.6.17-rc4 with CONFIG_PARAVIRT=y vs 2.6.17-rc4 CONFIG_PARAVIRT=y with patch. Summary: with binary patching, the difference

Hi LLVM-ites! We are doing a quick test of 3.3rc3. Our testers did a quick turn around and created binaries which you can test. Please give them a go and let us know how they work for you. They are here: http://llvm.org/pre-releases/3.3/rc3 We don't have a lot of time remaining in the release cycle, so please do whatever you can to make sure they are solid. In particular, make sure that