Displaying 11 results from an estimated 11 matches for "looprestructur".
2013 Jul 28
2
[LLVMdev] Enabling the SLP-vectorizer by default for -O3
...Previous Current σ
MultiSource/Benchmarks/VersaBench/beamformer/beamformer 18.98% 0.0722 0.0859 0.0003
MultiSource/Benchmarks/FreeBench/pifft/pifft 5.66% 0.5003 0.5286 0.0015
MultiSource/Benchmarks/TSVC/LinearDependence-flt/LinearDependence-flt 4.85% 0.4084 0.4282 0.0014
MultiSource/Benchmarks/TSVC/LoopRestructuring-flt/LoopRestructuring-flt 4.36% 0.3856 0.4024 0.0018
MultiSource/Benchmarks/TSVC/ControlFlow-flt/ControlFlow-flt 2.62% 0.4424 0.4540 0.0019
External/SPEC/CINT2006/401_bzip2/401_bzip2 1.50% 1.0613 1.0772 0.0010
MultiSource/Benchmarks/tramp3d-v4/tramp3d-v4 1.23% 12.1337 12.2831 0.0296
MultiSource/...
2013 Jul 28
0
[LLVMdev] Enabling the SLP-vectorizer by default for -O3
...entσ
> MultiSource/Benchmarks/VersaBench/beamformer/beamformer18.98%0.07220.0859
> 0.0003MultiSource/Benchmarks/FreeBench/pifft/pifft5.66%0.50030.52860.0015
> MultiSource/Benchmarks/TSVC/LinearDependence-flt/LinearDependence-flt4.85%
> 0.40840.42820.0014
> MultiSource/Benchmarks/TSVC/LoopRestructuring-flt/LoopRestructuring-flt
> 4.36%0.38560.40240.0018
> MultiSource/Benchmarks/TSVC/ControlFlow-flt/ControlFlow-flt2.62%0.4424
> 0.45400.0019External/SPEC/CINT2006/401_bzip2/401_bzip21.50%1.06131.0772
> 0.0010MultiSource/Benchmarks/tramp3d-v4/tramp3d-v41.23%12.133712.2831
> 0.0296Mu...
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".
2018 Apr 26
0
Compare test-suite benchmarks performance complied without TBAA, with default TBAA and with new TBAA struct path
...10214|2.476810043| 0.1|12728810217| 0|2.479956135| -0.02|12728810217| 0|
|MultiSource/Benchmarks/TSVC/LoopRerolling-flt/LoopRerolling-flt.test | 40|1.749389689| 9799621839|1.751205696| -0.1| 9799621843| 0|1.746036585| 0.19| 9799621844| 0|
|MultiSource/Benchmarks/TSVC/LoopRestructuring-dbl/LoopRestructuring-dbl.test | 40|2.994641973| 4745295255|2.998408679| -0.13| 4745295258| 0|2.986642419| 0.27| 4745295256| 0|
|MultiSource/Benchmarks/TSVC/LoopRestructuring-flt/LoopRestructuring-flt.test | 40|2.402549805| 4419860245| 2.3960923| 0.27| 4419860251| 0|2.4039...
2013 Sep 17
4
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Compile-time and Execution-time analysis for the SCEV canonicalization
...nicalization passes" can provide more opportunities for optimization. However, we find that removing polly canonicalization passes may also improve the execution-time performance for some benchmarks as shown in the follows:
Performance Regressions - Execution Time
MultiSource/Benchmarks/TSVC/LoopRestructuring-flt/LoopRestructuring-flt45.89%
SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/huffbench22.24%
SingleSource/Benchmarks/Shootout/fib215.06%
SingleSource/Benchmarks/Stanford/FloatMM13.98%
SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/mandel-text13.16%
Performance Improvements - Execution Time
SingleSource/Benchmarks/Po...
2013 Sep 14
0
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Compile-time and Execution-time analysis for the SCEV canonicalization
Hello all,
I have evaluated the compile-time and execution-time performance of Polly canonicalization passes. Details can be referred to http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/recent_activity. There are four runs:
pollyBasic (run 45): clang -O3 -Xclang -load -Xclang LLVMPolly.so
pollyNoGenSCEV (run 44): clang -O3 -Xclang -load -Xclang LLVMPolly.so -mllvm -polly -mllvm -polly-codegen-scev
2013 Sep 13
2
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Compile-time and Execution-time analysis for the SCEV canonicalization
At 2013-09-09 13:07:07,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote:
>On 09/09/2013 05:18 AM, Star Tan wrote:
>>
>> At 2013-09-09 05:52:35,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/08/2013 08:03 PM, Star Tan wrote:
>>> Also, I wonder if your runs include the dependence analysis. If this is
>>> the
2013 Jul 28
0
[LLVMdev] IR Passes and TargetTransformInfo: Straw Man
...126 0.05776054129878
Benchmarks/MiBench/automotive-basicmath/aut 0.1698 0.1699 0.05889281507655
Benchmarks/ASC_Sequoia/IRSmk/IRSmk 2.6607 2.6626 0.07140977938136
Benchmarks/Fhourstones-3.1/fhourstones3.1 0.7427 0.7433 0.08078632018310
Benchmarks/TSVC/LoopRestructuring-dbl/LoopR 2.9857 2.9883 0.08708175637204
Benchmarks/Olden/em3d/em3d 2.0241 2.0262 0.10374981473247
Benchmarks/TSVC/LoopRerolling-flt/LoopRerol 2.0889 2.0914 0.11968021446694
Benchmarks/TSVC/Packing-dbl/Packing-dbl 2.8154 2.8196 0.1...
2013 Jul 18
3
[LLVMdev] IR Passes and TargetTransformInfo: Straw Man
Andy and I briefly discussed this the other day, we have not yet got
chance to list a detailed pass order
for the pre- and post- IPO scalar optimizations.
This is wish-list in our mind:
pre-IPO: based on the ordering he propose, get rid of the inlining (or
just inline tiny func), get rid of
all loop xforms...
post-IPO: get rid of inlining, or maybe we still need it, only
2017 Sep 22
0
[RFC] Polly Status and Integration
Hi Hal,
On 09/21, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev wrote:
>
> On 09/12/2017 10:26 PM, Gerolf Hoflehner wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On Sep 11, 2017, at 10:47 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev
> >><llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>On 09/11/2017 12:26 PM, Adam Nemet wrote:
> >>>Hi Hal,
2017 Sep 22
4
[RFC] Polly Status and Integration
On 09/12/2017 10:26 PM, Gerolf Hoflehner wrote:
>
>
>> On Sep 11, 2017, at 10:47 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev
>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 09/11/2017 12:26 PM, Adam Nemet wrote:
>>> Hi Hal, Tobias, Michael and others,
>>> *...*
>>>
>>> One thing that I’d