search for: peizhao

It's really nice of you pointing out the -Xclang option, it makes things much easier. I really appreciate your help! Best, Peizhao On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 10:12 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > On Apr 10, 2017, at 5:21 PM, Craig Topper via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > clang -O0 does not disable all optimization passes modify the IR.; In fact > it cause...

...plifycfg -loop-simplify -lcssa -loop-rotate -licm -gvn -verify test.bc -o test.bc 3. Run llc with -O0: llc -file-type=obj test.bc -o test.o 4. Last link all the object files: clang -O0 test1.o test2.o -o test ********************************************************************************* Thanks, Peizhao -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170301/b8abed08/attachment.html>

...-llvm -o a.bc LULESH.cc; opt -O3 a.bc -o b.bc; llc -O3 -filetype=obj b.bc -o b.o ; clang++ b.o -o b.out; ./b.out 20 Runtime: 9.53 seconds 1 and 3 have almost the same performance, while 2 is significantly worse, while I expect 1, 2 ,3 should have trivial difference. Is this a wrong expectation? @Peizhao, what did you try in your last post? On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Peizhao Ou via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > It's really nice of you pointing out the -Xclang option, it makes things > much easier. I really appreciate your help! > > Best, > Peizhao...

....bc; llc -O3 -filetype=obj b.bc -o b.o ; > clang++ b.o -o b.out; ./b.out 20 > Runtime: 9.53 seconds > > 1 and 3 have almost the same performance, while 2 is significantly worse, > while I expect 1, 2 ,3 should have trivial difference. > > Is this a wrong expectation? > > @Peizhao, what did you try in your last post? > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Peizhao Ou via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> It's really nice of you pointing out the -Xclang option, it makes things >> much easier. I really appreciate your help! &g...

...for example here just adding to the regular clang invocation ` -Xclang -disable-llvm-passes` Best, — Mehdi > > You should be able to feed the output from that command to opt/llc and get consistent results. > > > > > ~Craig > > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Peizhao Ou via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > Hi folks, > > I am wondering about the relationship clang, opt and llc. I understand that this has been asked, e.g., http://stackoverflow.com/questions/40350990/relationship-between-clang...

...ut; ./b.out 20 >>> Runtime: 9.53 seconds >>> >>> 1 and 3 have almost the same performance, while 2 is significantly >>> worse, while I expect 1, 2 ,3 should have trivial difference. >>> >>> Is this a wrong expectation? >>> >>> @Peizhao, what did you try in your last post? >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Peizhao Ou via llvm-dev < >>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> >>>> It's really nice of you pointing out the -Xclang option, it makes >>>> thing...

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 12:53 PM, John Criswell via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 3/1/17 2:54 PM, Peizhao Ou via llvm-dev wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > I am currently testing out a combination of IR->IR passes with opt to > benchmark how they affect performance. The source code works fine if simply > use the clang (-O0/-O3) to directly compile to object files and link them. > Howe...

....o ; >> clang++ b.o -o b.out; ./b.out 20 >> Runtime: 9.53 seconds >> >> 1 and 3 have almost the same performance, while 2 is significantly worse, >> while I expect 1, 2 ,3 should have trivial difference. >> >> Is this a wrong expectation? >> >> @Peizhao, what did you try in your last post? >> >> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Peizhao Ou via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> It's really nice of you pointing out the -Xclang option, it makes things >>> much easier. I really...

...Runtime: 9.53 seconds >>>> >>>> 1 and 3 have almost the same performance, while 2 is significantly >>>> worse, while I expect 1, 2 ,3 should have trivial difference. >>>> >>>> Is this a wrong expectation? >>>> >>>> @Peizhao, what did you try in your last post? >>>> >>>> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Peizhao Ou via llvm-dev < >>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> It's really nice of you pointing out the -Xclang option, it makes &g...

...ect my wrong understanding of the relationship between these two approaches? PS: I used the -debug-pass=Structure option to print out the passes, they seem the same except that the first approach has an extra pass called "-add-discriminator", but I don't think that's the reason. Peizhao -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170410/06a0fbcb/attachment.html>

...t;>>> >>>>> 1 and 3 have almost the same performance, while 2 is significantly >>>>> worse, while I expect 1, 2 ,3 should have trivial difference. >>>>> >>>>> Is this a wrong expectation? >>>>> >>>>> @Peizhao, what did you try in your last post? >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Peizhao Ou via llvm-dev < >>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> It's really nice of you pointing out the -Xclang...

...t;>>> >>>>> 1 and 3 have almost the same performance, while 2 is significantly >>>>> worse, while I expect 1, 2 ,3 should have trivial difference. >>>>> >>>>> Is this a wrong expectation? >>>>> >>>>> @Peizhao, what did you try in your last post? >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Peizhao Ou via llvm-dev < >>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> It's really nice of you pointing out the -Xclang...

...t;>>> >>>>> 1 and 3 have almost the same performance, while 2 is significantly >>>>> worse, while I expect 1, 2 ,3 should have trivial difference. >>>>> >>>>> Is this a wrong expectation? >>>>> >>>>> @Peizhao, what did you try in your last post? >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Peizhao Ou via llvm-dev < >>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> It's really nice of you pointing out the -Xclang...

...gt;>>> 1 and 3 have almost the same performance, while 2 is significantly >>>>>> worse, while I expect 1, 2 ,3 should have trivial difference. >>>>>> >>>>>> Is this a wrong expectation? >>>>>> >>>>>> @Peizhao, what did you try in your last post? >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Peizhao Ou via llvm-dev < >>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> It's really nice of you poin...

...gt;>>> 1 and 3 have almost the same performance, while 2 is significantly >>>>>> worse, while I expect 1, 2 ,3 should have trivial difference. >>>>>> >>>>>> Is this a wrong expectation? >>>>>> >>>>>> @Peizhao, what did you try in your last post? >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Peizhao Ou via llvm-dev < >>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> It's really nice of you poin...

...gt;>>> 1 and 3 have almost the same performance, while 2 is significantly >>>>>> worse, while I expect 1, 2 ,3 should have trivial difference. >>>>>> >>>>>> Is this a wrong expectation? >>>>>> >>>>>> @Peizhao, what did you try in your last post? >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Peizhao Ou via llvm-dev < >>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> It's really nice of you poin...

...d 3 have almost the same performance, while 2 is significantly >>>>>>> worse, while I expect 1, 2 ,3 should have trivial difference. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is this a wrong expectation? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> @Peizhao, what did you try in your last post? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Peizhao Ou via llvm-dev < >>>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's rea...

...d 3 have almost the same performance, while 2 is significantly >>>>>>> worse, while I expect 1, 2 ,3 should have trivial difference. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is this a wrong expectation? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> @Peizhao, what did you try in your last post? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Peizhao Ou via llvm-dev < >>>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's rea...

...d 3 have almost the same performance, while 2 is significantly >>>>>>> worse, while I expect 1, 2 ,3 should have trivial difference. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is this a wrong expectation? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> @Peizhao, what did you try in your last post? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Peizhao Ou via llvm-dev < >>>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's rea...

...ile 2 is significantly >>>>>>>>> worse, while I expect 1, 2 ,3 should have trivial difference. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Is this a wrong expectation? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> @Peizhao, what did you try in your last post? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Peizhao Ou via llvm-dev < >>>>>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>&...