search for: optbeta

Hi Devang, I've tried the OPTBETA approach, and it now runs with and without my patch succesfully. I've found two problems, however: 1. The output of the nightly report does not include the figures from opt-beta by default. I've modified the TEST.nightly.report script to add two columns (OPT-BETA and LLC/OPT-BETA), b...

...at for measuring the impact of codegen changes. opt-beta allows you to compare "opt -std-compile-opts" vs. "opt <your sequence of optimization passes>" For your use, you can have local command line option to trigger your simplifycfg patch and then you can try ENABLE_OPTBETA=1 OPTBETAOPTIONS="-your-command-line-flag -std-compile- opts" Let me know, if you try this and run into issues. - Devang

...pported as anything else (I try not to break it, and will fix bugs in it). And yes, there are still users that use this regularly. Most of that is probably habit among old-school LLVMers, but it's still useful when you want to do direct A/B testing of optimizer changes (support for things like OPTBETA and LLCBETA), or when you want to test a change without requiring a compiler rebuild. For example, we still don't have very good support in the compiler for tweaking various parts of the compilation process (for example, running with a custom pass list), so the easiest way to test addition of...

...ry not to break it, and > will fix bugs in it). > > And yes, there are still users that use this regularly. Most of that is > probably habit among old-school LLVMers, but it's still useful when you want > to do direct A/B testing of optimizer changes (support for things like > OPTBETA and LLCBETA), or when you want to test a change without requiring a > compiler rebuild. > > For example, we still don't have very good support in the compiler for > tweaking various parts of the compilation process (for example, running with > a custom pass list), so the easiest...

...ill fix bugs in it). > > > > And yes, there are still users that use this regularly. Most of that is > > probably habit among old-school LLVMers, but it's still useful when you > want > > to do direct A/B testing of optimizer changes (support for things like > > OPTBETA and LLCBETA), or when you want to test a change without > requiring a > > compiler rebuild. > > > > For example, we still don't have very good support in the compiler for > > tweaking various parts of the compilation process (for example, running > with > > a...

On Wed, 21 May 2008, Mike Stump wrote: > On May 21, 2008, at 8:09 AM, Matthijs Kooijman wrote: >> Any thoughts or suggestions on how to do this testing in a >> structured manner? > > I think that if what you're doing is sound, and you get the results > you want, say, on compiling something like gcc with it and others > review the basic idea (hi evan or chris) and

...> >> > And yes, there are still users that use this regularly. Most of that is >> > probably habit among old-school LLVMers, but it's still useful when you >> > want >> > to do direct A/B testing of optimizer changes (support for things like >> > OPTBETA and LLCBETA), or when you want to test a change without >> > requiring a >> > compiler rebuild. >> > >> > For example, we still don't have very good support in the compiler for >> > tweaking various parts of the compilation process (for example, runn...

...here are still users that use this regularly. Most of that > is > >> > probably habit among old-school LLVMers, but it's still useful when > you > >> > want > >> > to do direct A/B testing of optimizer changes (support for things like > >> > OPTBETA and LLCBETA), or when you want to test a change without > >> > requiring a > >> > compiler rebuild. > >> > > >> > For example, we still don't have very good support in the compiler for > >> > tweaking various parts of the compilation p...

On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: > To weigh in here... > > > On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:15 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> +Daniel & Michael who work on the LNT infrastructure & might have some >> thoughts on the differences & their merits & motivations. >> >> On

To weigh in here... On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:15 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > +Daniel & Michael who work on the LNT infrastructure & might have some > thoughts on the differences & their merits & motivations. > > On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:05 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> > wrote: > > David, > > > >