search for: db_default

Did something change with exception handling recently? A bunch of lit bots are showing slower compile times for many tests. Ciao, Duncan. On 20/06/12 07:53, llvm-testresults at cs.uiuc.edu wrote: > > lab-mini-03__O0-g__clang_DEV__x86_64 test results > <http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/1283?compare_to=1278&baseline=999> > > Run Order Start Time Duration > Current <http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/1283> 158786 > <http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/order/1314> 2012-06-20 03:39:48 2:15:27 > Previous <http://llvm.org/perf/db_de...

...eption handling recently? A bunch of lit bots are > showing slower compile times for many tests. > > Ciao, Duncan. > > On 20/06/12 07:53, llvm-testresults at cs.uiuc.edu wrote: >> >> lab-mini-03__O0-g__clang_DEV__x86_64 test results >> <http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/1283?compare_to=1278&baseline=999> >> >> Run Order Start Time Duration >> Current <http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/1283> 158786 >> <http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/order/1314> 2012-06-20 03:39:48 2:15:27 >> Previous <http:...

...nch of lit bots are >> showing slower compile times for many tests. >> >> Ciao, Duncan. >> >> On 20/06/12 07:53, llvm-testresults at cs.uiuc.edu wrote: >>> >>> lab-mini-03__O0-g__clang_DEV__x86_64 test results >>> <http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/1283?compare_to=1278&baseline=999> >>> >>> Run Order Start Time Duration >>> Current <http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/1283> 158786 >>> <http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/order/1314> 2012-06-20 03:39:48 2:15:27 >>>...

Are these 225 compile time regressions real? It sure looks bad! Ciao, Duncan. On 01/12/11 09:39, llvm-testresults at cs.uiuc.edu wrote: > > bwilson__llvm-gcc_PROD__i386 nightly tester results > > URL http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/simple/nts/380/ > Nickname bwilson__llvm-gcc_PROD__i386:4 > Name curlew.apple.com > > Run ID Order Start Time End Time > Current 380 0 2011-12-01 07:59:12 2011-12-01 08:42:06 > Previous 379 0 2011-11-30 08:13:45 2011-11-30 08:56:22 > > > Tests Summary > >...

...showing slower compile times for many tests. >>> >>> Ciao, Duncan. >>> >>> On 20/06/12 07:53, llvm-testresults at cs.uiuc.edu wrote: >>>> >>>> lab-mini-03__O0-g__clang_DEV__x86_64 test results >>>> <http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/1283?compare_to=1278&baseline=999> >>>> >>>> Run Order Start Time Duration >>>> Current <http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/1283> 158786 >>>> <http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/order/1314> 2012-06-20 03:39:48 2:1...

On 07/30/2013 10:03 AM, Star Tan wrote: > Hi Tobias and all Polly developers, > > I have re-evaluated the Polly compile-time performance using newest > LLVM/Polly source code. You can view the results on > http://188.40.87.11:8000 > <http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/16?compare_to=9&baseline=9&aggregation_fn=median>. > > Especially, I also evaluated ourr187102 patch file that avoids expensive > failure string operations in normal execution. Specifically, I evaluated > two cases for it: > > Polly-NoCodeGen: clang -O3 -load LLV...

...pecially, I also evaluated our r187102 patch file that avoids expensive failure string operations in normal execution. Specifically, I evaluated two cases for it: Polly-NoCodeGen: clang -O3 -load LLVMPolly.so -mllvm -polly-optimizer=none -mllvm -polly-code-generator=none http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/16?compare_to=9&baseline=9&aggregation_fn=median Polly-Opt: clang -O3 -load LLVMPolly.so -mllvm -polly http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/18?compare_to=11&baseline=11&aggregation_fn=median The "Polly-NoCodeGen" case is mainly used to compare the compile-ti...

.../30/2013 10:03 AM, Star Tan wrote: >> Hi Tobias and all Polly developers, >> >> I have re-evaluated the Polly compile-time performance using newest >> LLVM/Polly source code. You can view the results on >> http://188.40.87.11:8000 >> <http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/16?compare_to=9&baseline=9&aggregation_fn=median>. >> >> Especially, I also evaluated ourr187102 patch file that avoids expensive >> failure string operations in normal execution. Specifically, I evaluated >> two cases for it: >> >> Polly-NoCode...

...Tan wrote: >>> Hi Tobias and all Polly developers, >>> >>> I have re-evaluated the Polly compile-time performance using newest >>> LLVM/Polly source code. You can view the results on >>> http://188.40.87.11:8000 >>> <http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/16?compare_to=9&baseline=9&aggregation_fn=median>. >>> >>> Especially, I also evaluated ourr187102 patch file that avoids expensive >>> failure string operations in normal execution. Specifically, I evaluated >>> two cases for it: >>> &...

...gt; Hi Tobias and all Polly developers, >>>> >>>> I have re-evaluated the Polly compile-time performance using newest >>>> LLVM/Polly source code. You can view the results on >>>> http://188.40.87.11:8000 >>>> <http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/16?compare_to=9&baseline=9&aggregation_fn=median>. >>>> >>>> Especially, I also evaluated ourr187102 patch file that avoids expensive >>>> failure string operations in normal execution. Specifically, I evaluated >>>> two cases for it...

Hi, I have just tagged 3.7.1-rc1, so it is ready for testing. As a reminder, when doing regression testing, use the 3.7.0 release as your baseline. Thanks, Tom

...ocations. It looks like these > haven't run [1] since the move from svn to git -- are there any plans > to get these running again? I find it highly useful to identify what > commits have affected variable locations and how significant an > affect. > > [0] http://lnt.llvm.org/db_default/v4/nts/graph?plot.0=1357.1607042.4 > [1] http://lnt.llvm.org/db_default/v4/nts/machine/1357 > > -- > Thanks, > Jeremy > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/li...

...ber of source variables with locations. It looks like these haven't run [1] since the move from svn to git -- are there any plans to get these running again? I find it highly useful to identify what commits have affected variable locations and how significant an affect. [0] http://lnt.llvm.org/db_default/v4/nts/graph?plot.0=1357.1607042.4 [1] http://lnt.llvm.org/db_default/v4/nts/machine/1357 -- Thanks, Jeremy

Hello all, I have done some basic experiments about Polly canonicalization passes and I found the SCEV canonicalization has significant impact on both compile-time and execution-time performance. Detailed results for SCEV and default canonicalization can be viewed on: http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/32 (or 33, 34) *pNoGen with SCEV canonicalization (run 32): -O3 -Xclang -load -Xclang LLVMPolly.so -mllvm -polly -mllvm -polly-optimizer=none -mllvm -polly-code-generator=none -mllvm -polly-codegen-scev *pNoGen with default canonicalization (run 33): -O3 -Xclang -load -Xclang LLVMPolly...

...at >http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/lld-perf-testsuite. >It builds LLVM and LLD by the latest releaed Clang and runs a set of >perfromance tests. > >The builder is reliable. Please pay attention on the failures. > >The performance statistics are here: >http://lnt.llvm.org/db_default/v4/link/recent_activity > >Thanks > >Galina Great news, thanks ! Looking on results I am not sure how to explain them though. For example r325313 fixes "use after free", it should not give any performance slowdowns or boosts. Though if I read results right, they show 23.65%...

...the extra time and larger gaps between the tested revisions. 10 runs seems give a good balance. But I'm open for suggestions. It seems the statistics are quite stable if you would look over number of revisions. And in this particular case the picture seems quite clear. At http://lnt.llvm.org/db_default/v4/link/104, the list of Performance Regressions suggests that the most hit was with the linux-kernel. The regressed metrics - branches, branch-misses, instructions, cycles, seconds-elapsed, task-clock. Some other benchmarks shows regressions in branches and branch-misses, some shows improvements....

...https://gist.github.com/tanstar/581bcea1e4e03498f935/raw/f6a4ec4e8565f7a7bbdb924cd59fcf145caac039/Polly-top10 >>>> >>>> >>>> Based on the comparison between "clang -O3" and "polly -O3" listed on: >>>>       http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/18?compare_to=14&baseline=14 >>> >>> Please compare against clang -O3 -load LLVMPolly.so, otherwise >>> especially the compile time of the small binaries includes the overhead >>> of loading the Polly shared object file. >> >> In fact, the ...

Thanks a lot for setting this up! By using the "mean as aggregation" option one can see the noise in the results better: http://lnt.llvm.org/db_default/v4/link/graph?switch_min_mean=yes&moving_window_size=10&plot.9=1.9.7&submit=Update There are a few benchmarknig tips in https://www.llvm.org/docs/Benchmarking.html. For example, from looking at http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/lld-perf-testsuite/builds/285/steps/cmake-configure/logs...

...ave done some basic experiments about Polly canonicalization passes and I found the SCEV canonicalization has significant impact on both compile-time and execution-time performance. Interesting. > Detailed results for SCEV and default canonicalization can be viewed on: http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/32 (or 33, 34) > *pNoGen with SCEV canonicalization (run 32): -O3 -Xclang -load -Xclang LLVMPolly.so -mllvm -polly -mllvm -polly-optimizer=none -mllvm -polly-code-generator=none -mllvm -polly-codegen-scev > *pNoGen with default canonicalization (run 33): -O3 -Xclang -load -Xcla...

...com/tanstar/581bcea1e4e03498f935/raw/f6a4ec4e8565f7a7bbdb924cd59fcf145caac039/Polly-top10 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Based on the comparison between "clang -O3" and "polly -O3" listed on: >>>>> http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/18?compare_to=14&baseline=14 >>>> >>>> Please compare against clang -O3 -load LLVMPolly.so, otherwise >>>> especially the compile time of the small binaries includes the overhead >>>> of loading the Polly shared object file. >>&...