search for: microbench

...x$enable_stack_smash_protection = "xyes" ; then XIPH_GXX_STACK_PROTECTOR fi +if test "x$sys_linux" = xtrue ; then + LIB_CLOCK_GETTIME=-lrt + fi +AC_SUBST(LIB_CLOCK_GETTIME) + AC_CONFIG_FILES([ \ Makefile \ src/Makefile \ diff --git a/microbench/Makefile.am b/microbench/Makefile.am index e00097d..452e748 100644 --- a/microbench/Makefile.am +++ b/microbench/Makefile.am @@ -36,3 +36,5 @@ noinst_HEADERS = util.h noinst_PROGRAMS = benchmark_residual benchmark_residual_SOURCES = benchmark_residual.c util.c + +benchmark_residual_LDADD = @LIB_...

...isabled configure.ac: Don't build any tests when they are explicitely disabled configure.ac: Allow examples to be disabled win_utf8_io: Avoid forbidden functions when building for WinRT/UWP configure.ac | 10 ++++++++++ examples/Makefile.am | 2 ++ microbench/Makefile.am | 4 ++++ src/Makefile.am | 10 +++++++--- src/flac/Makefile.am | 13 +++++++++---- src/metaflac/Makefile.am | 8 ++++++-- src/share/win_utf8_io/win_utf8_io.c | 9 +++++++++ src/test_libFLAC++/Makefile.am | 5 +++++ 8 f...

Martijn van Beurden wrote: > I just checked on my Raspberry pi (armv6-hf, GCC 4.6) and it > looks like decoding is actually faster with these changes. I > benchmarked 1b8af6b against f7c52c8, the results are attached. Interesting results, thanks. (OTOH, GCC 4.6 was released ~4.5 years ago, so it would be also interesting to test it on newer compilers - GCC 4.9.x or 5.x, or some new

...52c8, the results are attached. > > Interesting results, thanks. > > > (OTOH, GCC 4.6 was released ~4.5 years ago, so it would be also > interesting to test it on newer compilers - GCC 4.9.x or 5.x, > or some new Clang...) I've added a micro benchmark for this is in the microbench/ directory. If you pull from git and then: ./autogen.sh ./configure cd microbench/ make ./benchmark_residual you will get something like this (armhf with gcc-4.9.3): shift order 2 : 0.000279 0.000284 0.000285 0.000525 mult order 2 : 0.000240 0.000242 0.000243 0.0002...

...in this function) >> clock_gettime (CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID, &start) ; >> >> Would using gettimeofday() be accurate enough? > > AS a fall back yes, but not as replacement on platforms with clock_gettime(). > >> Perhaps simpler just to >> disable the microbench test on OS/2 as gettimeofday() would require a >> configure test and OS/2 is a minor platform? > > > I would accept a patch that disables the microsbenchmark on OS/2 I would > also accept one that uses gettimeofday() when clock_gettime() is not > available. Here's one at...

HI all, I think its time for a new release. The current code base is stable and I've been building it for x86_64/linux, powerpc/linux, armhf/linux, x86_64/darwin in a Jenkins build bot. I'm pretty sure others have been building regularly on their platforms of interest. I made a first pass on an update to the changelog.html. I' also putting toether a release checklist that I will add

...es with, util.c: In function 'benchmark_function': util.c:124:17: error: 'CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID' undeclared (first use in this function) clock_gettime (CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID, &start) ; Would using gettimeofday() be accurate enough? Perhaps simpler just to disable the microbench test on OS/2 as gettimeofday() would require a configure test and OS/2 is a minor platform? Dave -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 0001-OS-2-currently-has-too-old-of-a-binutils-to-support-.patch Type: application/x-patch Size: 904 bytes Desc: not a...

...k_gettime (CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID, &start) ; > >> > >> Would using gettimeofday() be accurate enough? > > > > AS a fall back yes, but not as replacement on platforms with clock_gettime(). > > > >> Perhaps simpler just to > >> disable the microbench test on OS/2 as gettimeofday() would require a > >> configure test and OS/2 is a minor platform? > > > > > > I would accept a patch that disables the microsbenchmark on OS/2 I would > > also accept one that uses gettimeofday() when clock_gettime() is not > >...

...9;t build any tests when they are explicitely disabled > configure.ac: Allow examples to be disabled > win_utf8_io: Avoid forbidden functions when building for WinRT/UWP > > configure.ac | 10 ++++++++++ > examples/Makefile.am | 2 ++ > microbench/Makefile.am | 4 ++++ > src/Makefile.am | 10 +++++++--- > src/flac/Makefile.am | 13 +++++++++---- > src/metaflac/Makefile.am | 8 ++++++-- > src/share/win_utf8_io/win_utf8_io.c | 9 +++++++++ > src/test_libFLAC++/Makefil...

...n they are explicitely disabled >> configure.ac: Allow examples to be disabled >> win_utf8_io: Avoid forbidden functions when building for WinRT/UWP >> >> configure.ac | 10 ++++++++++ >> examples/Makefile.am | 2 ++ >> microbench/Makefile.am | 4 ++++ >> src/Makefile.am | 10 +++++++--- >> src/flac/Makefile.am | 13 +++++++++---- >> src/metaflac/Makefile.am | 8 ++++++-- >> src/share/win_utf8_io/win_utf8_io.c | 9 +++++++++ >> src/te...

...to avoid doing an extra cmpxchg that is not necessary. > I just tried this on my code and I cannot see a difference. As I said before, I did see a difference with that change. I think it depends on the CPU chip that we used for testing. I ran my test on a 10-core Westmere-EX chip. I run my microbench on different pairs of core within the same chip. It produces different results that varies from 779.5ms to up to 1192ms. Without that patch, the lowest value I can get is still close to 800ms, but the highest can be up to 1800ms or so. So I believe it is just a matter of timing that you did not...

Dear FLAC devs, I would like to get some of our patches merged into master. Most of them deal with adhering to GNU conventions, respectively not overriding flags/variables that are up to the user to set. For instance, honoring $(htmldir) is important, as we have installation paths for the documentation that differ from what is currently coded in the various Makefile.am's. Regards David

On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 11:43:52AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > --- > kernel/locking/qspinlock.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++-- > 1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c > index fc7fd8c..7f10758 100644 > --- a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c > +++ b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c > @@ -233,11 +233,25

On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 11:43:52AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > --- > kernel/locking/qspinlock.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++-- > 1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c > index fc7fd8c..7f10758 100644 > --- a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c > +++ b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c > @@ -233,11 +233,25