search for: d7715

...tivity, or some other more systematic interactions. There is one issue, which involved a correctness fix for runtime unrolling that was done in a sub-optimal way (causing it to introduce an unnecessary comparison) that I think is well understood, and for which we have a fix (http://reviews.llvm.org/D7715). We should pick up this in the release. I think that, unfortunately, for the others, there's not sufficient time to investigate before the release. -Hal > > Joerg > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu...

Hi Jack, On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 6:05 AM, Jack Howarth <howarth.mailing.lists at gmail.com> wrote: > What are the acceptable performance regressions in the generated > code for a llvm release? We seem to be badly regressed in some > benchmarks (which I first noticed from the review of 3.6-rc1 at > http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=llvm-clang-3.5-3.6-rc1).

On 02/18/2015 03:01 PM, Renato Golin wrote: > So it seems that you're one of the very few people that doesn't use > ToT. Almost everyone else uses it and the progress of LLVM kind of > assume you do. My company also does not use ToT. Being able to associate a product with a well-known release is *very* important to us. It enables communication with our customers. It allows