Displaying 15 results from an estimated 15 matches for "ffbench".
Did you mean:
fftbench
2009 Mar 09
2
[LLVMdev] [llvm-testresults] cfarm-x86-64 x86_64 nightly tester results
...(0.75 => 3.62)
> singlesource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/sphereflake: 18.66% (11.90 => 9.68)
> singlesource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/stepanov_container: -1811.11% (0.54 => 10.32)
> singlesource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/stepanov_v1p2: 16.90% (25.33 => 21.05)
> singlesource/Benchmarks/Misc/ffbench: -17.61% (3.18 => 3.74)
> singlesource/Benchmarks/Shootout-C++/random: 5.51% (3.81 => 3.60)
> singlesource/Benchmarks/Shootout/hash: -25.67% (9.70 => 12.19)
> singlesource/Benchmarks/Shootout/methcall: 23.51% (7.74 => 5.92)
> multisource/Applications/lambda-0.1.3/lambda:...
2009 Mar 09
0
[LLVMdev] [llvm-testresults] cfarm-x86-64 x86_64 nightly tester results
...h: -563.16% (0.57 => 3.78)
> singlesource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/ray: 6.45% (7.60 => 7.11)
> singlesource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/sphereflake: 12.32% (6.09 => 5.34)
> singlesource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/stepanov_container: -2438.89% (0.36
> => 9.14)
> singlesource/Benchmarks/Misc/ffbench: -7.76% (3.61 => 3.89)
> multisource/Applications/lambda-0.1.3/lambda: 18.24% (9.76 => 7.98)
Can you check to see if the stepanov_container/fftbench regressions
are real? If so, it would be very interesting to know what is "going
wrong" on them.
-Chris
2013 Dec 19
0
[LLVMdev] LLVM ARM VMLA instruction
On 19 December 2013 11:16, suyog sarda <sardask01 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Test case name :
> llvm/projects/test-suite/SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/matmul_f64_4x4.c -
> This is a 4x4 matrix multiplication, we can make small changes to make it a
> 3x3 matrix multiplication for making things simple to understand .
>
This is one very specific case. How does that behave on all
2013 Dec 19
3
[LLVMdev] LLVM ARM VMLA instruction
...mla for
cortex-a8)
===========
=======================================================
llvm/projects/test-suite/SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/Large/sphereflake
55
llvm/projects/test-suite/SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/Large/ray.cpp
40
llvm/projects/test-suite/SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/ffbench.c
8
llvm/projects/test-suite/SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/matmul_f64_4x4.c
18
llvm/projects/test-suite/SingleSource/Benchmarks/BenchmarkGame/n-body.c
36
With vmul+vadd instruction pair comes extra overhead of load/store ops, as
seen in assembly generated. With -mcpu=cortex-a15 option clang perfo...
2013 Dec 19
2
[LLVMdev] LLVM ARM VMLA instruction
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>wrote:
> On 19 December 2013 08:50, suyog sarda <sardask01 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It may seem that total number of cycles are more or less same for single
>> vmla and vmul+vadd. However, when vmul+vadd combination is used instead of
>> vmla, then intermediate results will be generated
2015 Feb 26
5
[LLVMdev] [RFC] AArch64: Should we disable GlobalMerge?
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".
2012 Feb 19
2
[LLVMdev] Problem While Running Test Suite
...eSource/Benchmarks/Misc/flops-1 | * | * |
SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/lowercase | * | * |
SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/flops-8 | * | * |
SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/ffbench | * | * |
SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/salsa20 | * | * |
SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/flops-7 | * | * |
SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/mandel...
2018 Apr 26
0
Compare test-suite benchmarks performance complied without TBAA, with default TBAA and with new TBAA struct path
...7261689| 0.01|43389260276| 0| 7.77649329| 0.02|43389260275| 0|
|SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/fftbench.test | 300|0.577644623| 1677763916|0.575129582| 0.44| 1659545051| 1.1|0.574668086| 0.52| 1655350754| 1.35|
|SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/huffbench.test | 40|8.787346305|82150680101|8.787841696| -0.01|82150680104| 0|8.788171583| -0.01|82150680102| 0|
|SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/lpbench.test | 40|2.229018103| 7882704081|2.237111177| -0.36| 7882704087| 0|2.2343620...
2009 Oct 20
1
[LLVMdev] 2.6 pre-release2 ready for testing
...8.12 | 2.11 2.08 n/a n/a
> SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/fftbench |
> 0.1400 22432 0.0900 * 0.0999 | 2.26 *
> 2.21 * 2.35 | n/a 1.02 n/a n/a
> SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/huffbench |
> 0.0300 6584 0.0300 * 0.0400 | 19.18 17.21
> 18.83 * 19.82 | 1.11 1.02 n/a n/a
> SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/lpbench |
> 0.0400 4556 0.0300 * ...
2009 Oct 20
0
[LLVMdev] 2.6 pre-release2 ready for testing
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
2009 Oct 20
1
[LLVMdev] 2.6 pre-release2 ready for testing
...n/a
> SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/
> fftbench | 0.1400 22432 0.0900
> * 0.0999 | 2.26 * 2.21 *
> 2.35 | n/a 1.02 n/a n/a
> SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/
> huffbench | 0.0300 6584 0.0300
> * 0.0400 | 19.18 17.21 18.83 *
> 19.82 | 1.11 1.02 n/a n/a
> SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/
> lpbench | 0.0400 4556 0.0300
>...
2009 Oct 17
12
[LLVMdev] 2.6 pre-release2 ready for testing
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,
2009 Feb 07
11
[LLVMdev] 2.5 Pre-release1 available for testing
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
2014 Jan 28
3
[LLVMdev] MergeFunctions: reduce complexity to O(log(N))
Hi Stepan,
Sorry for the delay. It's great that you are working on MergeFunctions
as well and I agree, we should definitely try to combine our efforts to
improve MergeFunctions.
Just to give you some context, the pass (with the similar function
merging patch) is already being used in a production setting. From my
point of view, it would be better if we focus on improving its
capability
2014 Jan 30
3
[LLVMdev] MergeFunctions: reduce complexity to O(log(N))
...23080 0 0.01 23049 0 0.01 23049
fannkuch.ll 2 16822 0 0.01 16798 0 0.01 16798
fasta.ll 6 19924 0 0.01 19894 0 0.01 19894
fbench.ll 3 40167 0 0.01 40152 0 0.01 40152
fdtd-2d.ll 12 37045 0 0.01 37008 0 0.00 37008
fdtd-apml.ll 12 90288 0 0.02 90249 0 0.02 90249
fe.ll 21 73735 0 0.01 73719 0 0.02 73446
ffbench.ll 2 38643 0 0.01 38628 0 0.01 38628
fftbench.ll 81 162362 4 0.02 161595 2 0.02 163177
fftFunctions.ll 16 176353 0 0.02 176338 0 0.03 176338
fft.ll 3 32602 0 0.01 32587 0 0.01 32587
FFT.ll 6 26717 0 0.01 26697 0 0.01 26697
fftmisc.ll 4 8115 0 0.01 8085 0 0.01 8085
fftsg.ll 37 694548 0 0.07 694523 0...