search for: cogen

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Finn S Andersen wrote: > >Is there a chance you can try cvs? I would be interested to > >get a simplified test case where the allocator breaks. A lot of > >improvements went into the x86 backend since 1.2 and we currently have > >no test cases where the allocator breaks today. > > > > > I would, if I could. > But trying cvsweb I cannot

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Finn S Andersen wrote: > Alkis Evlogimenos wrote: > > >Is there a chance you can try cvs? I would be interested to > >get a simplified test case where the allocator breaks. A lot of > >improvements went into the x86 backend since 1.2 and we currently have > >no test cases where the allocator breaks today. > I updated and recompiled and the

Chris Lattner wrote: >You can check out the whole CVS tree at once, which is going to be a lot >easier than pulling it down from CVSweb :) Here are the instructions: >http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/docs/GettingStarted.html#checkout > Ouch, how embarrasing - I looked for that place, but apparently failed to notice it. Sorry. Anyhow, I checked it out as described (in a clean directory),

Alkis Evlogimenos wrote: >On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 11:01:48AM +0200, Finn S Andersen wrote: > > >>For some of the benchmarks the linear scan regalloc >>works. When it does, results are in the x1.0 - 1.5 >>range. Unfortunately, the linear scan allocator breaks >>on most of my code. >> >> > >Is there a chance you can try cvs? I would be

Finn S Andersen wrote: > Chris Lattner wrote: > >> I can't reproduce this failure with mainline CVS using either lli or llc: >> >> $ lli -regalloc=linearscan a.out.bc >> $ echo $status >> 0 >> >> Are you sure that the CVS version is in your path? >> >> > After configure and make I run make install, which moves the executables

Chris Lattner wrote: >I can't reproduce this failure with mainline CVS using either lli or llc: > >$ lli -regalloc=linearscan a.out.bc >$ echo $status >0 > >Are you sure that the CVS version is in your path? > > After configure and make I run make install, which moves the executables to /usr/local/bin, right ? And yes, they are in my path. But thank you very

Alkis Evlogimenos wrote: >Is there a chance you can try cvs? I would be interested to >get a simplified test case where the allocator breaks. A lot of >improvements went into the x86 backend since 1.2 and we currently have >no test cases where the allocator breaks today. > > I updated and recompiled and the error is still there. It turns out that I cannot use the bugpoint

On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 11:01:48AM +0200, Finn S Andersen wrote: > For some of the benchmarks the linear scan regalloc > works. When it does, results are in the x1.0 - 1.5 > range. Unfortunately, the linear scan allocator breaks > on most of my code. Is there a chance you can try cvs? I would be interested to get a simplified test case where the allocator breaks. A lot of

...ter than just using the LLVM->x86 backend. This indicates that the performance difference is mostly located to the LLVM->x86 backend. Further, for those of my codes where the new allocator works, results are much better. Whether this is due to the allocator, or some interaction between it and cogen, I do not know. Currently, I am just playing with LLVM, but the longterm plan is to build a new backend for a new machine. It won't be register starved as the x86 is. Question: 2) Is there a similar performance differential between LLVM->sparc and gcc on sparc, or are they much closer...