search for: fp_tolerance

...a good relative tolerance to set for these two tests? > > What's the minimum relative tolerance that you need for them to pass? Setting FP_ABSTOLERANCE=1e-5, the two tests are passing when compiled with -Ofast for the following relative tolerance: polybench/linear-algebra/kernels/symm, FP_TOLERANCE=1e-10 polybench/linear-algebra/solvers/gramschmidt, FP_TOLERANCE=1e5 gramschmidt passes validation against reference output, symm does not pass validation against reference output: I have opened a bug for that: "__attribute__((optnone)) not respected with -ffast-math or -Ofast" https://l...

...taking times in the benchmark tool, and we're trying to assert the quality of the FP approximation by the vectorization, I'll try to come up with a reasonable watermark for each test. Maybe adding the values of all elements in the result vector, or something, and printing that value, using FP_TOLERANCE to detect errors in the vectorized code. Does this seem sensible? cheers, --renato

...o.org> wrote: > On 20 October 2016 at 16:05, Sebastian Pop <sebpop.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: >> Setting FP_ABSTOLERANCE=1e-5, the two tests are passing >> when compiled with -Ofast for the following relative tolerance: >> >> polybench/linear-algebra/kernels/symm, FP_TOLERANCE=1e-10 >> polybench/linear-algebra/solvers/gramschmidt, FP_TOLERANCE=1e5 > > I'm confused. Is this 1e-5 or 1e5? The test passes for a relative tolerance of 100,000.

...e also need to decide which proposal (or combination of) to implement and commit. Proposal 1: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25277 modify the CMakes to compile and run each of these benchmarks twice: once with added CFLAGS -ffp-contract=off. Record on disk the full output of both runs and compare with FP_TOLERANCE. Hash the output of the run with -ffp-contract=off and exact match against the reference output. The good for Proposal 1: - changes contained in the build system: no change to the code of the benchmarks - runs benchmarks under an extra configuration with CFLAGS += -ffp-contract=off The bad for P...

Seems fairly reasonable to me. I don't know what size of arrays you are dealing with, if they are reasonably small it is probably also fine to just output each element in the result. It's fine to start by just setting FP_TOLERANCE to a small value and if it breaks in the future because of an actual precision change we can tweak it. Thanks for the reformatting, its great to see new benchmarks getting added! - Daniel On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Renato Golin <rengolin at systemcall.org>wrote: > Daniel, Nad...

...U specific features, but we don't need that. > > > > - Produce reference output files, so it works with > USE_REFERENCE_OUTPUT=1 > > Is this a simple diff or do you compare the numerical results by > value+-stdev? > We have support for value + tolerance. You can set FP_TOLERANCE=.0001 or so in the Makefile to tune the limit. For example see SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/Makefile. - Daniel cheers, > --renato > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20121107/7ee1705a/att...

On 6 November 2012 22:28, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: > Is it possible instead to refactor the tests so that each binary corresponds > to one test? For example, look at how Hal went about integrating TSVC: It should be possible. I'll have to understand better what the preamble does to make sure I'm not stripping out important stuff, but also what to copy to

...implement and commit. > > > > Proposal 1: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25277 > > modify the CMakes to compile and run each of these benchmarks > > twice: > > once with added CFLAGS -ffp-contract=off. Record on disk the full > > output of both runs and compare with FP_TOLERANCE. Hash the output > > of > > the run with -ffp-contract=off and exact match against the > > reference > > output. > > > > The good for Proposal 1: > > - changes contained in the build system: no change to the code of > > the > > benchmarks >...

...ination of) to implement and commit. >> >> Proposal 1: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25277 >> modify the CMakes to compile and run each of these benchmarks twice: >> once with added CFLAGS -ffp-contract=off. Record on disk the full >> output of both runs and compare with FP_TOLERANCE. Hash the output >> of >> the run with -ffp-contract=off and exact match against the reference >> output. >> >> The good for Proposal 1: >> - changes contained in the build system: no change to the code of the >> benchmarks >> - runs benchmarks unde...

...urrent reference output is specific to fp-contract=off, and making it work for fp-contract=on makes no sense at all. For all we know, fp-contract=on generates *more accurate* results, not less. But it may also have less predictable results *across* different targets, thus the need to a tolerance. FP_TOLERANCE is *not* about making the new results match an old reference, but about showing the *real* uncertainties of FP transformation on *different* targets. So, if you want to fix this test for good, here are the steps you need to take: 1. Checkout the test-suite on different platforms, x86_64, ARM, AAr...

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Renato Golin" <renato.golin at linaro.org> >> To: "Sebastian Pop" <sebpop.llvm at gmail.com> >> Cc: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "Sebastian Paul Pop" <s.pop at samsung.com>,

...benchmark tool, and we're trying to > assert the quality of the FP approximation by the vectorization, I'll > try to come up with a reasonable watermark for each test. Maybe adding > the values of all elements in the result vector, or something, and > printing that value, using FP_TOLERANCE to detect errors in the > vectorized code. > Once Michael Ilseman commits the fast math patch we will be able to implement floating point reductions. Thanks, Nadav

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 10:39 PM, Sebastian Pop <sebpop.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Renato Golin" <renato.golin at linaro.org> >>> To: "Sebastian Pop" <sebpop.llvm at gmail.com> >>> Cc: "Hal