search for: controlflow

On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Redmond, Paul <paul.redmond at intel.com> wrote: > There is almost certainly a bug in lnt or the makefiles. > > I changed the body of Burg main to the following: > > + printf("Hello World\n"); > + return 0; > > > I re-ran the test-suite again and got the following errors: > > --- Tested: 986 tests -- > FAIL:

There is almost certainly a bug in lnt or the makefiles. I changed the body of Burg main to the following: + printf("Hello World\n"); + return 0; I re-ran the test-suite again and got the following errors: --- Tested: 986 tests -- FAIL: MultiSource/Applications/Burg/burg.execution_time (494 of 986) FAIL: MultiSource/Applications/ClamAV/clamscan.execution_time (495 of 986) FAIL:

...003 MultiSource/Benchmarks/FreeBench/pifft/pifft 5.66% 0.5003 0.5286 0.0015 MultiSource/Benchmarks/TSVC/LinearDependence-flt/LinearDependence-flt 4.85% 0.4084 0.4282 0.0014 MultiSource/Benchmarks/TSVC/LoopRestructuring-flt/LoopRestructuring-flt 4.36% 0.3856 0.4024 0.0018 MultiSource/Benchmarks/TSVC/ControlFlow-flt/ControlFlow-flt 2.62% 0.4424 0.4540 0.0019 External/SPEC/CINT2006/401_bzip2/401_bzip2 1.50% 1.0613 1.0772 0.0010 MultiSource/Benchmarks/tramp3d-v4/tramp3d-v4 1.23% 12.1337 12.2831 0.0296 MultiSource/Applications/kimwitu++/kc 1.15% 9.3690 9.4769 0.0186 SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++-EH/spirit...

...nce comparison between Polly's Cloog and ISL code generator is posted on http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/59?compare_to=58&baseline=58 It seems their execution-time performance are comparable: Performance Regressions - Execution Time  (ISL over Cloog) MultiSource/Benchmarks/TSVC/ControlFlow-flt/ControlFlow-flt 8.49% MultiSource/Benchmarks/TSVC/StatementReordering-flt/StatementReordering-flt 6.77% MultiSource/Benchmarks/TSVC/CrossingThresholds-flt/CrossingThresholds-flt 2.65% SingleSource/UnitTests/Vectorizer/gcc-loops 2.63% Performance Improvements - Execution Time  (ISL over Cloog)...

...t; - > > Symbolics-dbl: 51.42% > - > > Recurrences-dbl: 51.38% > - > > Packing-dbl: 51.33% > > LO: > > - > > enc-3des: 50.7% > - > > ecbdes: 46.27% > - > > security-rjindael:45.13% > - > > ControlFlow-flt: 25.79% > - > > ControlFlow-dbl: 25.74% > > MO: > > - > > ecbdes: 28.22% > - > > Expansion-flt: 22.56% > - > > Recurrences-flt: 22.19% > - > > StatementReordering-flt: 22.15% > - > > Searching-flt...

.../Benchmarks/FreeBench/pifft/pifft5.66%0.50030.52860.0015 > MultiSource/Benchmarks/TSVC/LinearDependence-flt/LinearDependence-flt4.85% > 0.40840.42820.0014 > MultiSource/Benchmarks/TSVC/LoopRestructuring-flt/LoopRestructuring-flt > 4.36%0.38560.40240.0018 > MultiSource/Benchmarks/TSVC/ControlFlow-flt/ControlFlow-flt2.62%0.4424 > 0.45400.0019External/SPEC/CINT2006/401_bzip2/401_bzip21.50%1.06131.0772 > 0.0010MultiSource/Benchmarks/tramp3d-v4/tramp3d-v41.23%12.133712.2831 > 0.0296MultiSource/Applications/kimwitu++/kc1.15%9.36909.47690.0186 > SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++-EH/spi...

Hi all, I've started looking at the GlobalMerge pass, enabled by default on ARM and AArch64. I think we should reconsider that, at least for AArch64. As is, the pass just merges all globals together, in groups of 4KB (AArch64, 128B on ARM). At the time it was enabled, the general thinking was "it's almost free, it doesn't affect performance much, we might as well use it".

tl;dr in low data situations we don’t look at past information, and that increases the false positive regression rate. We should look at the possibly incorrect recent past runs to fix that. Motivation: LNT’s current regression detection system has false positive rate that is too high to make it useful. With test suites as large as the llvm “test-suite” a single report will show hundreds of

...c > 13. 37.22% cumulative (1.08% - 62.35s this program) nts.SingleSource/Benchmarks/SmallPT/smallpt.exec > 14. 38.30% cumulative (1.08% - 62.30s this program) nts.MultiSource/Benchmarks/nbench/nbench.exec > 15. 39.37% cumulative (1.07% - 61.98s this program) nts.MultiSource/Benchmarks/TSVC/ControlFlow-dbl/ControlFlow-dbl.exec > 16. 40.40% cumulative (1.03% - 59.50s this program) nts.MultiSource/Applications/SPASS/SPASS.exec > 17. 41.37% cumulative (0.97% - 55.74s this program) nts.MultiSource/Benchmarks/TSVC/Expansion-dbl/Expansion-dbl.exec > 18. 42.33% cumulative (0.96% - 55.40s this p...

...new divergence/uniformity analysis that can be used on both LLVM IR and MachineIR. This analysis has to be able to operate generically on both basic blocks and values. If you're interested in this larger context, feel free to take a look here: https://github.com/nhaehnle/llvm-project/tree/controlflow-wip-v4. There are still some missing bits and pieces and more cleanup to be done for the parts which are not yet on Phabricator. I am going to tackle those over the next weeks. Templates vs. interfaces ======================== At a high level, there are two parts to the proposed framework: -...

...035 -2.7777777777777 Benchmarks/TSVC/Reductions-flt/Reductions-f 4.4121 4.2942 -2.6721969130346 Benchmarks/Olden/tsp/tsp 0.5126 0.5011 -2.2434646898166 Benchmarks/Trimaran/enc-pc1/enc-pc1 0.1574 0.154 -2.1601016518424 Benchmarks/TSVC/ControlFlow-flt/ControlFlow 2.351 2.3012 -2.1182475542322 Benchmarks/MiBench/network-dijkstra/network 0.0296 0.029 -2.0270270270270 Benchmarks/Ptrdist/bc/bc 0.4764 0.4674 -1.8891687657430 Benchmarks/Prolangs-C/gnugo/gnugo 0.028 0.0275...

Andy and I briefly discussed this the other day, we have not yet got chance to list a detailed pass order for the pre- and post- IPO scalar optimizations. This is wish-list in our mind: pre-IPO: based on the ordering he propose, get rid of the inlining (or just inline tiny func), get rid of all loop xforms... post-IPO: get rid of inlining, or maybe we still need it, only

...84141|0.647269346| -0.04| 4430743057| 0.01|0.647045686| 0| 4430743057| 0.01| |MultiSource/Benchmarks/Ptrdist/yacr2/yacr2.test | 81| 0.41891967| 4341406074|0.415939335| 0.72| 4336616952| 0.11|0.415140426| 0.91| 4336616952| 0.11| |MultiSource/Benchmarks/TSVC/ControlFlow-dbl/ControlFlow-dbl.test | 40|2.252897075|21925124584|2.241870402| 0.49|21925124591| 0|2.245260632| 0.34|21925124594| 0| |MultiSource/Benchmarks/TSVC/ControlFlow-flt/ControlFlow-flt.test | 40|1.831478707|21917035866|1.839019529| -0.41|21917035878| 0|1.8...

...can be used on both LLVM IR and >> MachineIR. This analysis has to be able to operate generically on both >> basic blocks and values. >> >> If you're interested in this larger context, feel free to take a look >> here: https://github.com/nhaehnle/llvm-project/tree/controlflow-wip-v4. >> There are still some missing bits and pieces and more cleanup to be done >> for the parts which are not yet on Phabricator. I am going to tackle >> those over the next weeks. >> >> >> Templates vs. interfaces >> ======================== >>...

I’m River and I’m a compiler engineer at PlayStation. Recently, I’ve been working on an interprocedural outlining (code folding) pass for code size improvement at the IR level. We hit a couple of use cases that the current code size solutions didn’t handle well enough. Outlining is one of the avenues that seemed potentially beneficial. -- Algorithmic Approach -- The general implementation can be