search for: int2006

Displaying 7 results from an estimated 7 matches for "int2006".

Did you mean: cint2006
2013 Jun 28
2
[LLVMdev] MI Scheduler vs SD Scheduler?
...on what we should do at this point. Should we integrate our work (an alternate register pressure reduction scheduler) into the SD scheduler or the MI scheduler? - Our SPEC testing on x86-64 has shown a significant performance improvement of LLVM 3.3 relative to LLVM 2.9 (about 5% in geomean on INT2006 and 15% in geomean on FP2006), but our spill code measurements have shown that LLVM 3.3 generates significantly more spill code on most benchmarks. We will be doing more investigation on this, but are there any known facts that explain this behavior? Is this caused by a known regression in schedu...
2013 Sep 19
0
[LLVMdev] Experimental Evaluation of the Schedulers in LLVM 3.3
...ere are the details of our results: > > Spill Counts > --------------- > CPU2006 has a total of 47448 functions, out of which 10363 functions (22%) have spills. If we break this down by FP and INT, we’ll see that 42% of the functions in FP2006 have spills, while 10% of the functions in INT2006 have spills. The amount of spill code was measured by printing the number of ranges spilled by the default (greedy) register allocator (printing the variable NumSpilledRanges in InlineSpiller.cpp). This is not a perfectly accurate metric, but, given the large sample size (> 10K functions), the t...
2013 Jul 01
0
[LLVMdev] MI Scheduler vs SD Scheduler?
...ScheduleDAGMI subclass. People who only want to define new heuristics should reuse ScheduleDAGMI directly and only define their own MachineSchedStrategy. > > - Our SPEC testing on x86-64 has shown a significant performance improvement of LLVM 3.3 relative to LLVM 2.9 (about 5% in geomean on INT2006 and 15% in geomean on FP2006), but our spill code measurements have shown that LLVM 3.3 generates significantly more spill code on most benchmarks. We will be doing more investigation on this, but are there any known facts that explain this behavior? Is this caused by a known regression in scheduli...
2013 Jul 02
2
[LLVMdev] MI Scheduler vs SD Scheduler?
...ScheduleDAGMI subclass. People who only want to define new heuristics should reuse ScheduleDAGMI directly and only define their own MachineSchedStrategy. > >- Our SPEC testing on x86-64 has shown a significant performance improvement of LLVM 3.3 relative to LLVM 2.9 (about 5% in geomean on INT2006 and 15% in geomean on FP2006), but our spill code measurements have shown that LLVM 3.3 generates significantly more spill code on most benchmarks. We will be doing more investigation on this, but are there any known facts that explain this behavior? Is this caused by a known regression in schedu...
2013 Jul 12
0
[LLVMdev] MI Scheduler vs SD Scheduler?
...subclass. People who only want to define new heuristics should reuse ScheduleDAGMI directly and only define their own MachineSchedStrategy. > >> >> - Our SPEC testing on x86-64 has shown a significant performance improvement of LLVM 3.3 relative to LLVM 2.9 (about 5% in geomean on INT2006 and 15% in geomean on FP2006), but our spill code measurements have shown that LLVM 3.3 generates significantly more spill code on most benchmarks. We will be doing more investigation on this, but are there any known facts that explain this behavior? Is this caused by a known regression in scheduli...
2013 Sep 19
1
[LLVMdev] Experimental Evaluation of the Schedulers in LLVM 3.3
...ere are the details of our results: > > Spill Counts > --------------- > CPU2006 has a total of 47448 functions, out of which 10363 functions (22%) have spills. If we break this down by FP and INT, we’ll see that 42% of the functions in FP2006 have spills, while 10% of the functions in INT2006 have spills. The amount of spill code was measured by printing the number of ranges spilled by the default (greedy) register allocator (printing the variable NumSpilledRanges in InlineSpiller.cpp). This is not a perfectly accurate metric, but, given the large sample size (> 10K functions), the t...
2013 Sep 17
11
[LLVMdev] Experimental Evaluation of the Schedulers in LLVM 3.3
...source");   Here are the details of our results: Spill Counts --------------- CPU2006 has a total of 47448 functions, out of which 10363 functions (22%) have spills. If we break this down by FP and INT, we’ll see that 42% of the functions in FP2006 have spills, while 10% of the functions in INT2006 have spills. The amount of spill code was measured by printing the number of ranges spilled by the default (greedy) register allocator (printing the variable NumSpilledRanges in InlineSpiller.cpp). This is not a perfectly accurate metric, but, given the large sample size (> 10K functions), the t...