search for: crystalmk

...(2.6 -> 2.7), but keep in mind that I wasn't using GCC 4.4.3 as comparison for llvm 2.6! MultiSource/Applications/hexxagon/hexxagon 1.22 -> 1.14 MultiSource/Applications/lua/lua 0.91 -> 0.84 MultiSource/Applications/obsequi/Obsequi 0.93 -> 0.86 MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASC_Sequoia/CrystalMk/CrystalMk 1.01 -> 0.91 MultiSource/Benchmarks/FreeBench/fourinarow/fourinarow 0.94 -> 0.75 MultiSource/Benchmarks/FreeBench/neural/neural 1.0 -> 0.9 MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/telecomm-gsm/telecomm-gsm 1.06 -> 0.9 MultiSource/Benchmarks/Olden/treeadd/treeadd 11.44 -> 9....

...ind > that I wasn't using GCC 4.4.3 as comparison for llvm 2.6! > > MultiSource/Applications/hexxagon/hexxagon 1.22 -> 1.14 > MultiSource/Applications/lua/lua 0.91 -> 0.84 > MultiSource/Applications/obsequi/Obsequi 0.93 -> 0.86 > MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASC_Sequoia/CrystalMk/CrystalMk 1.01 -> 0.91 > MultiSource/Benchmarks/FreeBench/fourinarow/fourinarow 0.94 -> 0.75 > MultiSource/Benchmarks/FreeBench/neural/neural 1.0 -> 0.9 > MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/telecomm-gsm/telecomm-gsm 1.06 -> 0.9 > MultiSource/Benchmarks/Olden/treeadd/tre...

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

...n't using GCC 4.4.3 as comparison for llvm 2.6! >> >> MultiSource/Applications/hexxagon/hexxagon 1.22 -> 1.14 >> MultiSource/Applications/lua/lua 0.91 -> 0.84 >> MultiSource/Applications/obsequi/Obsequi 0.93 -> 0.86 >> MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASC_Sequoia/CrystalMk/CrystalMk 1.01 -> 0.91 >> MultiSource/Benchmarks/FreeBench/fourinarow/fourinarow 0.94 -> 0.75 >> MultiSource/Benchmarks/FreeBench/neural/neural 1.0 -> 0.9 >> MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/telecomm-gsm/telecomm-gsm 1.06 -> 0.9 >> MultiSource/Benchmarks/O...

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

...e/Benchmarks/TSVC/StatementReordering-dbl/StatementReordering-dbl.exec > 21. 45.12% cumulative (0.91% - 52.46s this program) nts.SingleSource/Benchmarks/Polybench/datamining/covariance/covariance.exec > 22. 46.01% cumulative (0.89% - 51.49s this program) nts.MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASC_Sequoia/CrystalMk/CrystalMk.exec > 23. 46.89% cumulative (0.88% - 50.66s this program) nts.MultiSource/Benchmarks/TSVC/ControlFlow-flt/ControlFlow-flt.exec > 24. 47.73% cumulative (0.84% - 48.74s this program) nts.MultiSource/Benchmarks/TSVC/CrossingThresholds-dbl/CrossingThresholds-dbl.exec > 25. 48.57% cu...

.../Benchmarks/PAQ8p/paq8p | * | * | MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASC_Sequoia/AMGmk/AMGmk | * | * | MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASC_Sequoia/IRSmk/IRSmk | * | * | MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASC_Sequoia/CrystalMk/CrystalMk | * | * | MultiSource/Benchmarks/Fhourstones/fhourstones | * | * | MultiSource/Benchmarks/Trimaran/netbench-crc/netbench-crc | * | * | MultiSource/Benchmarks/Trimaran/netbench-url/netbench-url...

...-2.0270270270270 Benchmarks/Ptrdist/bc/bc 0.4764 0.4674 -1.8891687657430 Benchmarks/Prolangs-C/gnugo/gnugo 0.028 0.0275 -1.7857142857142 Benchmarks/VersaBench/dbms/dbms 0.8088 0.7949 -1.7185954500494 Benchmarks/ASC_Sequoia/CrystalMk/CrystalMk 3.7015 3.6379 -1.7182223422936 Benchmarks/Olden/health/health 0.1787 0.1757 -1.6787912702854 Benchmarks/VersaBench/bmm/bmm 1.4694 1.4455 -1.6265142234925 Benchmarks/McCat/01-qbsort/qbsort 0.0876 0.0862 -1.59...

...00/smg2000 -9.0% MultiSource/Applications/minisat/minisat -8.8% External/SPEC/CINT2006/473.astar/473.astar -8.7% SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/ReedSolomon -8.6% SingleSource/Benchmarks/BenchmarkGame/nsieve-bits -8.0% SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/salsa20 -7.7% MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASC_Sequoia/CrystalMk/CrystalMk -7.4% External/SPEC/CINT2006/401.bzip2/401.bzip2 -7.4% SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/mandel-2 -7.3% SingleSource/Benchmarks/Shootout-C++/methcall -6.5% MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/consumer-lame/consumer-lame -6.4% External/SPEC/CFP2000/183.equake/183.equake -5.6% MultiSource/Appli...

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

....464805189| 0.48| 5856337655| -0.19|1.465630801| 0.43| 5856337654| -0.19| |MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASC_Sequoia/AMGmk/AMGmk.test | 40|4.794886583|38013036990|4.579802023| 4.7|38512062691| -1.3|4.577213823| 4.76|38512062692| -1.3| |MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASC_Sequoia/CrystalMk/CrystalMk.test | 40|2.942015001|26934039129|2.943005397| -0.03|26934039124| 0|2.942780883| -0.03|26934039124| 0| |MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASC_Sequoia/IRSmk/IRSmk.test | 40|2.212075899| 8974161060|2.208563573| 0.16| 8974289110| 0| 2.20958...

...1 | 1.07    1.02    n/a          n/a > MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASC_Sequoia/AMGmk/AMGmk                           | > 0.0999 14168    0.0800      *                0.0799      |   15.60   15.84 > 15.72 *          15.78 | 0.98    0.99    n/a          n/a > MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASC_Sequoia/CrystalMk/CrystalMk                   | > 0.0500 8296     0.0500      *                0.0300      |    8.83    8.73 >  8.69 *           8.77 | 1.01    1.02    n/a          n/a > MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASC_Sequoia/IRSmk/IRSmk                           | > 0.0100 5600     0.0300      *            ...

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

....02 n/a n/a > MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASC_Sequoia/AMGmk/ > AMGmk | 0.0999 14168 0.0800 > * 0.0799 | 15.60 15.84 15.72 * > 15.78 | 0.98 0.99 n/a n/a > MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASC_Sequoia/CrystalMk/ > CrystalMk | 0.0500 8296 0.0500 > * 0.0300 | 8.83 8.73 8.69 * > 8.77 | 1.01 1.02 n/a n/a > MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASC_Sequoia/IRSmk/ > IRSmk | 0.0100 5600 0.0300...

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