search for: ludcmp

...zation passes and rewrite some critical but expensive optimization > passes. > StageIII -- Improve code generation passes for compiling performance. > [Week 6-9] > > Our evalutions show that polly code generation passes are very > expensive, especially for some benchmarks like ludcmp.c and adi.c. Polly > code generation passes can increase the compiling time by 500% or more > (See table 1). My plan is to improve various code generation passes. Can you verify your numbers here. You report for ludcmp the following: clang pBasic pNoOpt pNoGen pOPt ludcmp.c 0.157 0.160...

Hi all, I have updated my GSoS proposal: "FastPolly: Reducing LLVM-Polly Compiling overhead" (https://gist.github.com/tanstar/5441808). I think the pass ordering problem you discussed early can be also investigated in this project! Is there any comment or advice about my proposal? I appreciate all your help and advice. Thanks, Star Tan Proposal:

...(econd) | Polly-load > (econd) | Polly-optimize > (econd) | Polly-load penalty | Polly-optimize > Penalty | > | 2mm.c | 0.155 | 0.158 | 0.75 | 1.9% | 383.9% | > | correlation.c | 0.132 | 0.133 | 0.319 | 0.8% | 141.7% | > | geummv.c | 0.152 | 0.157 | 0.794 | 3.3% | 422.4% | > | ludcmp.c | 0.157 | 0.159 | 0.391 | 1.3% | 149.0% | > | 3mm.c | 0.103 | 0.109 | 0.122 | 5.8% | 18.4% | > | covariance.c | 0.16 | 0.163 | 1.346 | 1.9% | 741.3% | This is a very large slowdown. On my system I get 0.06 sec for Polly-load 0.09 sec for Polly-optimize What exact version of Polybench did...

...of Polly for PolyBench. | | Clang (econd) | Polly-load (econd) | Polly-optimize (econd) | Polly-load penalty | Polly-optimize Penalty | | 2mm.c | 0.155 | 0.158 | 0.75 | 1.9% | 383.9% | | correlation.c | 0.132 | 0.133 | 0.319 | 0.8% | 141.7% | | geummv.c | 0.152 | 0.157 | 0.794 | 3.3% | 422.4% | | ludcmp.c | 0.157 | 0.159 | 0.391 | 1.3% | 149.0% | | 3mm.c | 0.103 | 0.109 | 0.122 | 5.8% | 18.4% | | covariance.c | 0.16 | 0.163 | 1.346 | 1.9% | 741.3% | | gramchmidt.c | 0.159 | 0.167 | 1.023 | 5.0% | 543.4% | | eidel.c | 0.125 | 0.13 | 0.285 | 4.0% | 128.0% | | adi.c | 0.155 | 0.156 | 0.953 | 0.6% | 5...

...conds) | Polly-optimize >> (seconds) | Polly-load overhead | Polly-optimize >> overhead | >> | 2mm.c | 0.786 | 0.802 | 1.944 | 2.0% | 147.3% | >> | correlation.c | 0.782 | 0.792 | 2.005 | 1.3% | 156.4% | >> | gesummv.c | 0.583 | 0.603 | 1.08 | 3.4% | 85.2% | >> | ludcmp.c | 0.787 | 0.806 | 2.475 | 2.4% | 214.5% | >> | 3mm.c | 0.786 | 0.811 | 2.617 | 3.2% | 233.0% | >> | covariance.c | 0.73 | 0.74 | 2.294 | 1.4% | 214.2% | >> | gramschmidt.c | 0.63 | 0.643 | 1.134 | 2.1% | 80.0% | >> | seidel.c | 0.632 | 0.645 | 2.036 | 2.1% | 222.2% | >&...

...llected from Po | | Clang (seconds) | Polly-basic (seconds) | Polly-optimize (seconds) | Polly-load overhead | Polly-optimize overhead | | 2mm.c | 0.786 | 0.802 | 1.944 | 2.0% | 147.3% | | correlation.c | 0.782 | 0.792 | 2.005 | 1.3% | 156.4% | | gesummv.c | 0.583 | 0.603 | 1.08 | 3.4% | 85.2% | | ludcmp.c | 0.787 | 0.806 | 2.475 | 2.4% | 214.5% | | 3mm.c | 0.786 | 0.811 | 2.617 | 3.2% | 233.0% | | covariance.c | 0.73 | 0.74 | 2.294 | 1.4% | 214.2% | | gramschmidt.c | 0.63 | 0.643 | 1.134 | 2.1% | 80.0% | | seidel.c | 0.632 | 0.645 | 2.036 | 2.1% | 222.2% | | adi.c | 0.8 | 0.811 | 3.044 | 1.4% | 28...

...(econd) | Polly-load > (econd) | Polly-optimize > (econd) | Polly-load penalty | Polly-optimize > Penalty | > | 2mm.c | 0.155 | 0.158 | 0.75 | 1.9% | 383.9% | > | correlation.c | 0.132 | 0.133 | 0.319 | 0.8% | 141.7% | > | geummv.c | 0.152 | 0.157 | 0.794 | 3.3% | 422.4% | > | ludcmp.c | 0.157 | 0.159 | 0.391 | 1.3% | 149.0% | > | 3mm.c | 0.103 | 0.109 | 0.122 | 5.8% | 18.4% | > | covariance.c | 0.16 | 0.163 | 1.346 | 1.9% | 741.3% | This is a very large slowdown. On my system I get 0.06 sec for Polly-load 0.09 sec for Polly-optimize What exact version of Polybench did...

...) | Polly-basic > (seconds) | Polly-optimize > (seconds) | Polly-load overhead | Polly-optimize > overhead | > | 2mm.c | 0.786 | 0.802 | 1.944 | 2.0% | 147.3% | > | correlation.c | 0.782 | 0.792 | 2.005 | 1.3% | 156.4% | > | gesummv.c | 0.583 | 0.603 | 1.08 | 3.4% | 85.2% | > | ludcmp.c | 0.787 | 0.806 | 2.475 | 2.4% | 214.5% | > | 3mm.c | 0.786 | 0.811 | 2.617 | 3.2% | 233.0% | > | covariance.c | 0.73 | 0.74 | 2.294 | 1.4% | 214.2% | > | gramschmidt.c | 0.63 | 0.643 | 1.134 | 2.1% | 80.0% | > | seidel.c | 0.632 | 0.645 | 2.036 | 2.1% | 222.2% | > | adi.c | 0.8 |...

...load LLVMPolly.so -mllvm -polly -mllvm -polly-optimizer=none E: -O3 -load LLVMPolly.so -mllvm -polly -mllvm -polly-optimizer=none -mllvm -polly-code-generator=none o Some numbers are again fishy: adi: In your previous report you reported 0.953 seconds, the website now says 1.839 seconds. ludcmp: In your previous report you reported 0.391 seconds, the website now says 1.346 seconds instrument: It seems you rounded the previous numbers to one significant digit and calculated the performance difference from the rounded numbers. I would prefer if you would use the...

...RA~1/R/R-24~1.1/include -Wall -O2 -std=gnu99 -c lspecall.c -o lspecall.o lspecall.c: In function `tsadd': lspecall.c:626: warning: 'b2' might be used uninitialized in this function gcc -Ic:/PROGRA~1/R/R-24~1.1/include -Wall -O2 -std=gnu99 -c nlsd.c -o nlsd.o nlsd.c: In function `ludcmp': nlsd.c:695: warning: 'imax' might be used uninitialized in this function nlsd.c: In function `setupspace': nlsd.c:1717: warning: 'm' might be used uninitialized in this function nlsd.c: In function `startspace': nlsd.c:1838: warning: 'l' might be used uninitial...