search for: polybench

...commend looking at -O3 vs -O0 and make sure those are the same. -Ofast enables -ffast-math, which can legitimately cause differences. > The following tests pass at "-O3" and "-O3 -ffp-contract=on" compared with FP_ABSTOLERANCE=1e-5 against "-O0 -ffp-contract=off": polybench/linear-algebra/kernels/symm polybench/linear-algebra/solvers/gramschmidt polybench/stencils/seidel-2d The output of these 3 tests from "-O0 -ffp-contract=off" also matches the reference output. The following 2 tests still require increased FP_ABSTOLERANCE to pass compare between "-...

Hi Tobias, I am recently trying to set up the performance tester for FastPolly project. According to your suggestion, I plan to use the LNT infrastructure to set up the performance tester. For this purpose, I think I should do this job in three steps: First, I will add PolyBench to LLVM test-suite since PolyBench is the critical benchmarks for FastPolly. I have adjust the PolyBench-c-3.2 so we can put it into LLVM test-suite/SingleSource/Benchmarks/. Please find the attached PolyBench_for_LLVM_test_suite.tgz. Second, I think I should select some benchmarks for FastPolly...

Hi all, PolyBench (http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~pouchet/software/polybench/) is a well-known benchmark for polyhedral compiler. Since LLVM-Polly http://polly.llvm.org/) has provided a very good polyhedral optimizer for LLVM, could we add this benchmark to LLVM test-suite? I have attached the patch file to ad...

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: >> polybench/linear-algebra/kernels/symm, FP_ABSTOLERANCE=1e1 >> polybench/linear-algebra/solvers/gramschmidt, FP_ABSTOLERANCE=1e0 >> What should be a good relative tolerance to set for these two tests? > > What's the minimum relative tolerance that you need for them to pass? Setting FP_A...

...Hi Tobias, > > > I am recently trying to set up the performance tester for FastPolly project. According to your suggestion, I plan to use the LNT infrastructure to set up the performance tester. For this purpose, I think I should do this job in three steps: > > > First, I will add PolyBench to LLVM test-suite since PolyBench is the critical benchmarks for FastPolly. I have adjust the PolyBench-c-3.2 so we can put it into LLVM test-suite/SingleSource/Benchmarks/. Please find the attached PolyBench_for_LLVM_test_suite.tgz. Polybench should already be part of the LLVM test suite. Pleas...

...ias Braun" <matze at braunis.de>, "Clang Dev" <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "nd" <nd at arm.com>, "Abe Skolnik" >> <a.skolnik at samsung.com> >> Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 10:36:12 AM >> Subject: Re: [test-suite] making polybench/symm succeed with "-Ofast" and "-ffp-contract=on" >> >> On 14 October 2016 at 15:50, Sebastian Pop <sebpop.llvm at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > These 3 tests are passing with the following configurations: >> > -O3 -ffp-contract=off >>...

On 06/08/2013 11:26 PM, Star Tan wrote: > Hi all, > > > PolyBench (http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~pouchet/software/polybench/) is a well-known benchmark for polyhedral compiler. Since LLVM-Polly http://polly.llvm.org/) has provided a very good polyhedral optimizer for LLVM, could we add this benchmark to LLVM test-suite? > > > I have attached the pat...

Hi, I would need some help to fix polybench/symm: void kernel_symm(int ni, int nj, DATA_TYPE alpha, DATA_TYPE beta, DATA_TYPE POLYBENCH_2D(C,NI,NJ,ni,nj), DATA_TYPE POLYBENCH_2D(A,NJ,NJ,nj,nj), DATA_TYPE POLYBENCH_2D(B,NI,NJ,ni,nj)) { int i, j, k; DATA_TYPE acc; /* C := alpha*A*B + beta*C, A is symetric */ for (i = 0; i < _PB_N...

Hi all, We are trying to add Polybench[1] to the LLVM test suite. So far we have all but five benchmarks working fine. The problems we're having in those five benchmarks are due to gcc's versus clang's different ways to output 'Nan's. We are working to solve this. Although the patch is not ready yet to be included i...

...se recent performance-oriented patch files for ScopDetect/ScopInfo/ScopDependences/..., we have significantly reduced the compile-time overhead of Polly for a large number of benchmarks, such as: >>      SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/salsa20        -97.84% >>      SingleSource/Benchmarks/Polybench/linear-algebra/solvers/lu/lu        -85.01% >>      MultiSource/Applications/obsequi/Obsequi        -57.12% >>      SingleSource/Benchmarks/Polybench/stencils/seidel-2d/seidel-2d        -50.00% >>      MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/telecomm-gsm/telecomm-gsm        -40.09% >&g...

On 12 October 2016 at 13:04, Sebastian Pop <sebpop.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > The other problem is the reference output does not match > at "-O0 -ffp-contract=off". It might be that the reference output was recorded > at "-O3 -ffp-contract=off". I think that this hides either a compiler > bug or a test bug. Ah, yes! You mentioned before and I forgot to

Hi all, I'm trying to get the llvm's IR from the source code of Polybench (OMP) https://github.com/cavazos-lab/PolyBench-ACC/tree/master/OpenMP. I noticed a considerable difference between the IR generated using clang -emit-llvm -fopenmp and clang -emit-llvm: * using the -fopenmp flag I get a simplified IR in which I read a single basic block where I can highlight...

...uot; <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "nd" <nd at arm.com>, "Abe Skolnik" <a.skolnik at samsung.com>, >> "Sebastian Pop" <sebpop.llvm at gmail.com> >> Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 9:16:39 AM >> Subject: Re: [test-suite] making polybench/symm succeed with "-Ofast" and "-ffp-contract=on" >> >> On 12 October 2016 at 15:05, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: >> > This is something we need to understand. No, there's not always an >> > error bar. With FMA formation and with...

Hi all, I've started looking at the GlobalMerge pass, enabled by default on ARM and AArch64. I think we should reconsider that, at least for AArch64. As is, the pass just merges all globals together, in groups of 4KB (AArch64, 128B on ARM). At the time it was enabled, the general thinking was "it's almost free, it doesn't affect performance much, we might as well use it".

...ot; <matze at braunis.de>, "Clang Dev" <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "nd" <nd at arm.com>, "Abe Skolnik" >>> <a.skolnik at samsung.com> >>> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 6:33:43 AM >>> Subject: Re: [test-suite] making polybench/symm succeed with "-Ofast" and "-ffp-contract=on" >>> >>> On 11 October 2016 at 12:15, Sebastian Pop <sebpop.llvm at gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >> 1. Only test the non-FP-contracted output >>> > >>> > Yes, t...

On 14 October 2016 at 15:50, Sebastian Pop <sebpop.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > These 3 tests are passing with the following configurations: > -O3 -ffp-contract=off > -O3 -ffp-contract=on > -O0 -ffp-contract=off > -O0 -ffp-contract=on > > They are not passing at: > -Ofast -ffp-contract=on > -Ofast -ffp-contract=off Let's separate completely FP-contract and

It would help if you sent the IR you're giving to opt or at least a complete C function and your clang command line. ~Craig On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 3:05 PM, hameeza ahmed <hahmed2305 at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I m unable to vectorize following kernel by opt tool; > > for (i = 0; i < _PB_NI; i++) > for (j = 0; j < _PB_NJ; j++) > { >

Hi Duncan, On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Douglas, > >> We are trying to add Polybench[1] to the LLVM test suite. So far we >> have all but five benchmarks working fine. The problems we're having >> in those five benchmarks are due to gcc's versus clang's different >> ways to output 'Nan's. We are working to solve this. > > is it normal (i....

Hi Douglas, > We are trying to add Polybench[1] to the LLVM test suite. So far we > have all but five benchmarks working fine. The problems we're having > in those five benchmarks are due to gcc's versus clang's different > ways to output 'Nan's. We are working to solve this. is it normal (i.e. valid) that they o...

...Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 20 October 2016 at 16:05, Sebastian Pop <sebpop.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: >> Setting FP_ABSTOLERANCE=1e-5, the two tests are passing >> when compiled with -Ofast for the following relative tolerance: >> >> polybench/linear-algebra/kernels/symm, FP_TOLERANCE=1e-10 >> polybench/linear-algebra/solvers/gramschmidt, FP_TOLERANCE=1e5 > > I'm confused. Is this 1e-5 or 1e5? The test passes for a relative tolerance of 100,000.