search for: optimizerev

Fair enough... The following tests under MultiSource fail: Benchmarks/Olden/power Benchmarks/OptimizerEval Benchmarks/Ptrdist/ks Benchmarks/MallocBench/perl Applications/sgefa However, they also fail in the exact same way without my change. OptimizerEval appears to be non-deterministic; it produces different output each time it runs. Everything else passes. I also compared a few *.s files generated...

Jeff, I tried the Benchmarks/Olden/power, Benchmarks/OptimizerEval, and Benchmarks/Ptrdist/ks tests. They all worked with your patches. I suggest you update your tree :) The changes also survived all the Feature and Regression tests on Linux. So, your changes are committed. Thanks for the patches! Reid. On Sun, 2004-08-29 at 16:01, Jeff Cohen wrote: > Fa...

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 17:14:18 -0700 Reid Spencer <reid at x10sys.com> wrote: > Jeff, > > I tried the Benchmarks/Olden/power, Benchmarks/OptimizerEval, and > Benchmarks/Ptrdist/ks tests. They all worked with your patches. I > suggest you update your tree :) I was using the 1.3 release, though I did pull the current code from CVS to verify no other changes were made to those files. Unfortunately this machine is too underpowered to freque...

On Sun, 2004-08-29 at 16:01, Jeff Cohen wrote: > Fair enough... The following tests under MultiSource fail: > > Benchmarks/Olden/power > Benchmarks/OptimizerEval > Benchmarks/Ptrdist/ks > Benchmarks/MallocBench/perl > Applications/sgefa > > However, they also fail in the exact same way without my change. > OptimizerEval appears to be non-deterministic; it produces different > output each time it runs. Everything else passes. I also...

Jeff, Chris isn't likely to respond to this for a while as he's on vacation. I'll take a look at it and will commit it if it looks good. Since code gen isn't my specialty, could you increase my comfort level a little by giving me some examples of the test results you got when testing your patches? Ideally, I'd like to see some of the test/Programs/MultiSource programs working

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 02:20:34 -0500 (CDT) Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Jeff Cohen wrote: > > > Also, the store into the arrays generates two x86 machine > > instructions: > > > > lea %ECX, DWORD PTR [%ESP + 16] > > mov DWORD PTR [%ECX + <element offset>], %EAX > > > > These can be combined into a

...TI=0.16, P0=7725.99, Q0=1558.53 36c36 < TR=0.79, TI=0.16, P0=8052.56, Q0=1625.04 --- > TR=0.79, TI=0.16, P0=8052.56, Q0=1625.05 74c74 < TR=0.79, TI=0.16, P0=7894.33, Q0=1592.81 --- > TR=0.79, TI=0.16, P0=7894.32, Q0=1592.81 ===================== MultiSource/Benchmarks/OptimizerEval This test continues to be non-deterministic. Sample of partial diff: 10,16c10,16 < 0.086 0.117 < 0.094 0.086 < 0.086 0.094 < means 0.087 0.094 < vars 0.000012 0.000183 < sds 0.003494 0.013532 < result 1.000000 ---...

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 20:16:37 -0700 Jeff Cohen <jeffc at jolt-lang.org> wrote: > On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 08:52:10 -0700 > Jeff Cohen <jeffc at jolt-lang.org> wrote: > > > > I haven't got around to this yet but I will. The odds are good the > > > problem is in a BSD system header file so I need to capture the > > > preprocessed source. > > >

...0.79, TI=0.16, P0=7894.33, Q0=1592.81 > --- > > TR=0.79, TI=0.16, P0=7894.32, Q0=1592.81 This works on Linux (it did last night) so not sure why FreeBSD gives these rounding errors. Can you investigate? Does the test use fpcmp? > > ===================== MultiSource/Benchmarks/OptimizerEval > > This test continues to be non-deterministic. Sample of partial diff: > Not sure what's up with this one. > > ===================== MultiSource/Benchmarks/FreeBench/mason > > All fail (including native) with error "Could not open datafile test.in" Whe...

....89 2.61 * 2.65 | 0.32 1.08 n/a n/a MultiSource/Benchmarks/Olden/voronoi/voronoi | 0.1492 36924 0.1308 * 0.1283 | 0.84 1.15 0.75 * 0.93 | 0.73 1.12 n/a n/a MultiSource/Benchmarks/OptimizerEval/optimizer-eval | 0.1862 38784 0.2298 * 0.2440 | 87.94 90.57 98.20 * 97.25 | 0.97 0.90 n/a n/a MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C++/NP/np | 0.0034 1176 0.0036 * 0...

....55 2.97 * 3.04 | 1.05 1.61 n/a n/a MultiSource/Benchmarks/Olden/voronoi/voronoi | 0.1360 36436 0.1400 * 0.1320 | 1.28 1.37 1.09 * 1.25 | 0.93 1.17 n/a n/a MultiSource/Benchmarks/OptimizerEval/optimizer-eval | 0.1680 38200 0.2200 * 0.1600 | 103.74 103.71 100.88 * 114.34 | 1.00 1.03 n/a n/a MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C++/NP/np | 0.0040 1176 0.0040 * 0...

LLVMers, The 2.2 prerelease is now available for testing: http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.2/ If anyone can help test this release, I ask that you do the following: 1) Build llvm and llvm-gcc (or use a binary). You may build release (default) or debug. You may pick llvm-gcc-4.0, llvm-gcc-4.2, or both. 2) Run 'make check'. 3) In llvm-test, run 'make TEST=nightly report'. 4) When

....98 2.23 * 2.28 | 0.78 1.39 n/a n/a MultiSource/Benchmarks/Olden/voronoi/voronoi | 0.1279 36640 0.1132 * 0.1125 | 1.05 1.11 0.90 * 1.04 | 0.95 1.17 n/a n/a MultiSource/Benchmarks/OptimizerEval/optimizer-eval | 0.1705 38196 0.1914 * 0.2069 | 78.02 76.34 87.37 * 87.81 | 1.02 0.89 n/a n/a MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C++/NP/np | 0.0105 1188 0.0027 * 0...

....66 1.61 * 1.53 | 0.97 1.00 n/a n/a MultiSource/Benchmarks/Olden/voronoi/voronoi | 0.1340 36656 0.0553 * 0.0900 | 0.43 0.46 0.45 * 0.53 | 0.93 0.96 n/a n/a MultiSource/Benchmarks/OptimizerEval/optimizer-eval | 0.1062 40584 0.1009 * 0.1070 | 74.02 90.27 87.70 * 86.42 | 0.82 0.84 n/a n/a MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C++/NP/np | 0.0018 1196 0.0017 * 0...

...        1.16 | 1.02    1.01    n/a          n/a > MultiSource/Benchmarks/Olden/voronoi/voronoi                             | > 0.0900 13436    0.0500      *                0.0400      |    0.42    0.41 >  0.42 *           0.48 | 1.02    1.00    n/a          n/a > MultiSource/Benchmarks/OptimizerEval/optimizer-eval                      | > 0.0800 29224    0.1500      *                0.1800      |  106.85  110.58 >  109.30 *          96.14 | 0.97    0.98    n/a          n/a > MultiSource/Benchmarks/PAQ8p/paq8p                                       | > 0.9300 198188   1.0400      *...

Hi Tanya, > 1) Compile llvm from source and untar the llvm-test in the projects > directory (name it llvm-test or test-suite). Choose to use a > pre-compiled llvm-gcc or re-compile it yourself. I compiled llvm and llvm-gcc with separate objects directories. Platform is x86_64-linux-gnu. > 2) Run make check, report any failures (FAIL or unexpected pass). Note > that you need to

...| 1.02 1.01 n/a n/a > MultiSource/Benchmarks/Olden/voronoi/ > voronoi | 0.0900 13436 0.0500 > * 0.0400 | 0.42 0.41 0.42 * > 0.48 | 1.02 1.00 n/a n/a > MultiSource/Benchmarks/OptimizerEval/optimizer- > eval | 0.0800 29224 0.1500 > * 0.1800 | 106.85 110.58 109.30 * > 96.14 | 0.97 0.98 n/a n/a > MultiSource/Benchmarks/PAQ8p/ > paq8p | 0.9300 198188...

LLVMers, The 2.1 pre-release (version 1) is available for testing: http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.1/version1/ I'm looking for members of the LLVM community to test the 2.1 release. There are 2 ways you can help: 1) Download llvm-2.1, llvm-test-2.1, and the appropriate llvm-gcc4.0 binary. Run "make check" and the full llvm-test suite (make TEST=nightly report). 2) Download

LLVMers, 2.6 pre-release2 is ready to be tested by the community. http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.6/ If you have time, I'd appreciate anyone who can help test the release. To test llvm-gcc: 1) Compile llvm from source and untar the llvm-test in the projects directory (name it llvm-test or test-suite). Choose to use a pre- compiled llvm-gcc or re-compile it yourself. 2) Run make check,

LLVMers, The 2.5 pre-release is available for testing: http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.5/ If you have time, I'd appreciate anyone who can help test the release. Please do the following: 1) Download/compile llvm source, and either compile llvm-gcc source or use llvm-gcc binary (please compile llvm-gcc with fortran if you can). 2) Run make check, send me the testrun.log 3) Run "make