search for: bigfiber

Hi All ! Recently in the mailing list there was the question about benchmarking LLVM. I was told that LLVM get's benchmarked in the nightly test. While this is true, I wanted to have a tool to compare LLVM against other compilers, so I wrote a little python program (attached) that filled my need. It is completely outside of the LLVM makefile framework, but this stems from the fact that I

On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Alex Vinokur wrote: > I would like to use LLVM-GCC to compare its performance with other compilers. > Something like testsuite "Computing very large Fibonacci numbers" at > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.c%2B%2B.perfometer/37. Out of curiousity, I ran some quick tests on a AMD Athlon(TM) MP 2100+ box running Redhat linux 7.1. With the LLVM C

Hi, I would like to use LLVM-GCC to compare its performance with other compilers. Something like testsuite "Computing very large Fibonacci numbers" at http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.c%2B%2B.perfometer/37. My environment: ----------------- Windows 2000 Cygwin $ uname -srom CYGWIN_NT-5.0 1.5.11(0.116/4/2) i686 Cygwin ----------------- What do I have to download from

Hi Tanya, I've been checking the state of the various llvm-test failures on X86/Linux with GCC 3.4.6 and llvm-gcc4. I haven't finished this, but I thought the following might be useful for other people that are testing the release on Linux. Each group of failing tests below is followed by a comment about why its failing. llc /MultiSource/Applications/oggenc/oggenc jit

On Wed, 6 Oct 2004, Alex Vinokur wrote: > > have less impact than for a CPU bound program). In any case, I've added > > this program to the LLVM testsuite as > > SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/bigfib.cpp, so we should have numbers for > > it generated every night on multiple platforms. > > > [snip] > > Newsgroup

"Chris Lattner" <sabre at nondot.org> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0410051204480.5863-100000 at nondot.org... > On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Alex Vinokur wrote: > > > I would like to use LLVM-GCC to compare its performance with other compilers. > > Something like testsuite "Computing very large Fibonacci numbers" at > >

I created the 1.9 release branch last night. As a reminder, please do not check in any code changes to the release branch. Please send me email if you have changes that need to be merged into the release branch. To check out the release branch: cvs -d <CVS Repository> co -r release_19 llvm cvs -d <CVS Repository> co -r release_19 llvm-test cvs -d <CVS Repository> co -r

"Chris Lattner" <sabre at nondot.org> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0410061044190.367-100000 at nondot.org... > On Wed, 6 Oct 2004, Alex Vinokur wrote: > > > have less impact than for a CPU bound program). In any case, I've added > > > this program to the LLVM testsuite as > > > SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/bigfib.cpp, so we should have

On 03/17/2010 10:12 PM, Tanya Lattner wrote: > The 2.7 binaries are available for testing: > http://llvm.org/pre-releases/2.7/pre-release1/ > > You will also find the source tarballs there as well. > > We rely on the community to help make our releases great, so please help > test 2.7 if you can. Please follow these instructions to test 2.7: > > /To test llvm-gcc:/

This nightly tester is now using an llvm-g++ that produces the new ODR linkage types. This means that many more functions are being considered by the inter-procedural optimization passes (for example, "linkonce" functions defined in a header). The result seems to be pretty huge swings (both good and bad) in the C++ tests in the testsuite, see below. Note that this tester is often

Hi Tanya, Here's my second attempt on Fedora Core 5. The changes this time are: 1. Using GCC 4.0.3 as the compiler 2. Building everything from source (no pre-built binaries used) BUILD LLVM WITH GCC 4.0.3 * No issues, just the usual warnings. BUILD LLVM-GCC WITH GCC 4.0.3 * No issues RUN LLVM-TEST WITH GCC 4.0.3 * The following failures were encountered. Some of them are

On Mar 24, 2010, at 2:47 PM, Török Edwin wrote: > On 03/17/2010 10:12 PM, Tanya Lattner wrote: >> The 2.7 binaries are available for testing: >> http://llvm.org/pre-releases/2.7/pre-release1/ >> >> You will also find the source tarballs there as well. >> >> We rely on the community to help make our releases great, so please help >> test 2.7 if you

Tanya, Here's the results for GNU/Linux, 2.6.18-1.2200.fc5smp (Fedora Core 5) HIGH LEVEL COMMENTS * The llvm-1.9.tar.gz file unpacks to a dir named "llvm". Shouldn't that be llvm-1.9? * LLVM was built in Release mode in all cases * I don't think this is ready for release. In particular the llvm-gcc4 binary seg faults on FC 5 for most of llvm-test programs. *

LLVMers, The LLVM 1.9 Prerelease is available for testing: http://llvm.org/prereleases/1.9/ If anyone can spare some time, please download the appropriate tarballs for your platform and test the release (at least with make check). I'd also appreciate any documentation reviews. Please note that llvm-gcc3 on x86 may not have a clean dejagnu run. You should see one XPASS for

...no file transfer Product: rsync Version: 2.6.7 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: core AssignedTo: wayned@samba.org ReportedBy: travis@bigfiber.net QAContact: rsync-qa@samba.org Feature Request: It would be very useful to be able to specify the normal options such as --numeric-ids --owner --group --perms --recursive --existing etc but with --no-transfer or something similar that would allow you to sync the attributes of the file...

The 2.7 binaries are available for testing: http://llvm.org/pre-releases/2.7/pre-release1/ You will also find the source tarballs there as well. We rely on the community to help make our releases great, so please help test 2.7 if you can. Please follow these instructions to test 2.7: To test llvm-gcc: 1) Compile llvm from source and untar the llvm-test in the projects directory (name it

Dale, Thanks for reviewing this. I have some newbie questions regarding the test-suite for you or anyone: I'm trying to run the test-suite as described in the "LLVM Testing Infrastructure Guide" on a Ubuntu x86 64 bit system. Initially I ran into problems with missing tools like yacc, which I fixed as I went along until the make at the test-suite level completed. However, I get

CBE is fairly broken everywhere AFAIK, don't worry about it. Most of the JIT failures are in tests that exercise exception handling. Not sure if that is supposed to work in your environment, it works in some JITs and not others. The LLC failures are cause for concern. On Aug 30, 2010, at 10:59 AMPDT, John Thompson wrote: > Dale, > > Thanks for reviewing this. > > I have

Dale, I took a closer look at the first llc failure, initp1. Looking at the initp1.llc file in gdb, it appears that the statically constructed objects without the init_priority attribute are being constructed before those with it, though the test seems to expect the opposite. The initp1.llc.s file seems to have the .ctors table in the right order, but the _init code is reading the table in

On 03/30/2010 09:15 PM, Tanya Lattner wrote: > > Thanks for testing the release! > >> Tests were run on x86-64, Debian unstable, Linux 2.6.33, gcc 4.4.3, >> 64-bit. I built srcdir == objdir, I have built llvm and clang myself, >> and used the binaries for llvm-gcc. >> >> 1. llvm-gcc 2.7 vs 2.6 >> compared to my results from Aug 31 2009, ignoring CBE