search for: perlbench

...erage feature supported by clang to get the basicblock coverage. my tested binaries are spec cpu2006. I compiled the binary with the option COPTIMIZE = -O0 -fsanitize=address -fsanitize-coverage=bb -flto -fno-strict-aliasing -std=gnu89 -gdwarf-3 After the compiling process is end. I run the 400.perlbench. with the command ASAN_OPTIONS=coverage=1 ./perlbench. However, the AddressSanitizer detect the global buffer overflow and I could not run the perlbench properly. Is there anything wrong or I missed some configurations? I just want to compile the binaries with instrumented coverage information so...

...erage. > > > > my tested binaries are spec cpu2006. I compiled the binary with the > option > > COPTIMIZE = -O0 -fsanitize=address -fsanitize-coverage=bb -flto > -fno-strict-aliasing -std=gnu89 -gdwarf-3 > > > > After the compiling process is end. I run the 400.perlbench. with the > command > > ASAN_OPTIONS=coverage=1 ./perlbench. However, the AddressSanitizer > detect the global buffer overflow and I could not run the perlbench > properly. > > > > Is there anything wrong or I missed some configurations? I just want to > compile the b...

Hi Alex Thanks for your email. But it seems not work. I removed the -fsanitize=address flag. The global buffer overflow message doesn't show. However, no *.sancov file is created after I run perlbench. Thus, I could not get the BB coverage. Do you have any ideas? Many Thanks Regards Muhui Alexander Potapenko <glider at google.com> 于2018年9月5日周三 下午7:14写道： > Hi Muhui, > > If you want just the coverage information you can remove the > -fsanitize=address flag from the command lin...

Hello, I am new in using llvm so I would like to get some help on how to compile test-suite. Assumptions: llvm is in /llvm directory llvm-gcc is in /llvm-4.2-2.4-x86-linux-RHEL4/bin I have tried compiling test-suite and I get the following error: $make make[1]: Entering directory '/llvm/projects/test-suite/SingleSource' make[2]: Entering directory

...estimated SPECint_base2006 component runtimes for some relevant test configurations: Runtime in seconds: +--------------+---------+---------+---------+-------+ |Benchmark|Unpatched|Unpatched|Patched|MPX| ||Base|SafeStack|SafeStack|| +--------------+---------+---------+---------+-------+ |400.perlbench |430.82|443.07|442.42|456.34 | +--------------+---------+---------+---------+-------+ |401.bzip2|711.43|716.59|717.35|750.06 | +--------------+---------+---------+---------+-------+ |403.gcc|333.76|334.11|334.95|336.13 | +--------------+---------+---------+---------+-------+ |429.mcf|371.48|3...

> On Aug 18, 2020, at 16:59, Michael Kruse <llvmdev at meinersbur.de> wrote: > > Thanks for all the work. The reductions in stores look promising. Do you also have performance numbers how much this improves the execution time? Did you observe any regressions where MSSA resulted in fewer removed stores? I did not gather numbers for execution time yet, but I’ll try to share some

Hi, I am trying to compare the loop vectorizers effectiveness for different targets relative to each other. That way, I am hoping to find loops that are not vectorized - but could be - on my target by finding other targets doing this successfully. With some luck, there might be something in the Target files that could be fixed with improved vectorization as a result... I would like to do

...smacmini.local/perf/v4/nts/2/graph?test.5=2> -1.01% 12.5048 12.3791 0.0340 Performance Improvements - Compile Time Δ Previous Current σ External/SPEC/CINT2006/403.gcc/403.gcc <http://michaelsmacmini.local/perf/v4/nts/2/graph?test.14=2> -1.64% 54.0801 53.1930 - External/SPEC/CINT2006/400.perlbench/400.perlbench <http://michaelsmacmini.local/perf/v4/nts/2/graph?test.7=2> -1.25% 19.1481 18.9091 - External/SPEC/CINT2006/445.gobmk/445.gobmk <http://michaelsmacmini.local/perf/v4/nts/2/graph?test.15=2> -1.01% 15.2819 15.1274 - Do such changes make sense? The patch doesn't change...

...number of performance regressions between 2.9 and 3.0: http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1110178-AR-1110173AR66 Identifying where these were introduced is quite difficult. I wonder if some of the buildbots could be persuaded, after building clang, to build and run some benchmark projects (e.g. perlbench, povray, flac / lame, whatever) and email people if they introduce a performance regression, just as the current buildbots email people who break the build. David

...pty()) { unsigned StartingPHISize = InsertedPHIs.size(); fixupDefs(FixupList); FixupList.clear(); // Put any new phis on the fixup list, and process them FixupList.append(InsertedPHIs.end() - StartingPHISize, InsertedPHIs.end()); } With the latest code on trunk compilation of perlbench SPEC CPU 2017 INT benchmark with “-O3 -inline-threshold=1000 and -enable-gvn-hoist” options is looping infinitely on the above loop. Above loop never terminates unless elements from InsertedPHIs are removed as and when they are processed. But, I don’t see any call to remove contents, delete or cle...

...spec/2006/fp/C/470.lbm 41.08 +0.26% spec/2006/fp/C/482.sphinx3 47.58 -0.99% spec/2006/int/C++/471.omnetpp 22.06 +1.87% spec/2006/int/C++/473.astar 22.65 -0.12% spec/2006/int/C++/483.xalancbmk 33.69 +4.97% spec/2006/int/C/400.perlbench 33.43 +1.70% spec/2006/int/C/401.bzip2 23.02 -0.19% spec/2006/int/C/403.gcc 32.57 -0.43% spec/2006/int/C/429.mcf 40.35 +0.27% spec/2006/int/C/445.gobmk 26.96 +0.06% spec/2006/int/C/456.hmmer 24.4...

...3 808471 | 433.milc | 2163 1787190 | 450.soplex | 72 2472234 | 401.bzip2 | 229 2574217 | 456.hmmer | 1833 3492577 | 445.gobmk | 8480 3685838 | 444.namd | 616 12943554 | 471.omnetpp | 422 20068605 | 464.h264ref | 8593 23849576 | 400.perlbench | 99316 37779455 | 447.dealII | 11204 186008992 | 403.gcc | 404828 I am finding these results weird because I was expecting a larger number of no-alias responses. For instance, I got only 404,828 responses out of 186,008,992 queries. Has anyone gotten similar, or different...

...t any benchmark with noticeable regression and sometimes results in small improvement (1%-3%). 473.astar -7 401.bzip2 -110 403.gcc -13,006 445.gobmk -1,716 464.h264ref -684 456.hmmer -391 462.libquantum -4 429.mcf -4 471.omnetpp -1,980 400.perlbench -4,176 458.sjeng -338 450.soplex -395 483.xalancbmk -4,183 447.dealII -186 433.milc -34 444.namd -104 453.povray -1,785 482.sphinx3 -112 I propose to factor out the relevant code from BranchFolding into a utility, and call it from BlockPlacement...

...0.0340 >> >> >> Performance Improvements - Compile Time Δ Previous Current σ >> External/SPEC/CINT2006/403.gcc/403.gcc >> <http://michaelsmacmini.local/perf/v4/nts/2/graph?test.14=2> -1.64% >> 54.0801 53.1930 - >> External/SPEC/CINT2006/400.perlbench/400.perlbench >> <http://michaelsmacmini.local/perf/v4/nts/2/graph?test.7=2> -1.25% >> 19.1481 18.9091 - >> External/SPEC/CINT2006/445.gobmk/445.gobmk >> <http://michaelsmacmini.local/perf/v4/nts/2/graph?test.15=2> -1.01% >> 15.2819 15.1274 - >...

...t;> observed after r278338 (Resolution-based LTO API). > > Are you sure it is performed in the global merge pass? Can you provide > an example of input IR where you see this now but didn’t before? > Also can you confirm you’re using the gold-linker? I used gold linker. In spec2006/perlbench, I observed the less number of globals are merged in GlobalMerge.cpp after r278338. The reason is because, from the very first pass, several global variables use [4xi8] with align 4, instead of its original type i32 after r278338. Current GlobalMerge pass doesn't seem to handle such fancy-a...

In compiling perlbench in SPEC2006 today, I get the following asm code: .4byte ($debug_loc2280) .4byte 1 .4byte PerlIO_fd_refcnt $set1406 = ($.bss_end)-PerlIO_fd_refcnt .4byte ($set1406) .4byte PerlIO_perlio $set1407 = ($.data_end)-PerlIO_perlio .4byte ($set1407) .4by...

...TO API). >>> Are you sure it is performed in the global merge pass? Can you >>> provide >>> an example of input IR where you see this now but didn’t before? >>> Also can you confirm you’re using the gold-linker? >> >> I used gold linker. In spec2006/perlbench, I observed the less number >> of globals are merged in GlobalMerge.cpp after r278338. The reason is >> because, from the very first pass, several global variables use [4xi8] >> with align 4, instead of its original type i32 after r278338. Current >> GlobalMerge pass doe...

...ce regressions between 2.9 and 3.0: > > http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1110178-AR-1110173AR66 > > Identifying where these were introduced is quite difficult. I wonder if some of the buildbots could be persuaded, after building clang, to build and run some benchmark projects (e.g. perlbench, povray, flac / lame, whatever) and email people if they introduce a performance regression, just as the current buildbots email people who break the build. Step one would be to adopt these tests into the LLVM test harness. It will force organizations that care about performance to start paying at...

...InsertedPHIs.size(); > fixupDefs(FixupList); > FixupList.clear(); > // Put any new phis on the fixup list, and process them > FixupList.append(InsertedPHIs.end() - StartingPHISize, > InsertedPHIs.end()); > } > > With the latest code on trunk compilation of perlbench SPEC CPU 2017 INT > benchmark with “-O3 -inline-threshold=1000 and -enable-gvn-hoist” options > is looping infinitely on the above loop. > > > Above loop never terminates unless elements from InsertedPHIs are removed > as and when they are processed. > Yes, the loop is slig...

I do have a reproducer, but it's not for the faint of heart :) This is from a large and messy C file (Perlbench's regexec.c), reduced by bugpoint down to 1050 lines of IR. Perhaps I can paste it on pastebin. Just for fun, I added some debug dumps for machine instructions that spill registers (i.e. return non-zero from MachineInstr::getFoldedSpillSize()) that are fed by load-immediates and kill that regi...