Displaying 6 results from an estimated 6 matches for "r185399".
2013 Aug 01
0
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Update of Polly compile-time performance on LLVM test-suite
>However, I have noticed that there are many other Polly patches between the two version r185399 and r187116. They may also affect the compile-time performance. I would re-evaluate LLVM-testsuite to see the performance improvements caused only by our patch file.
Performance evaluation for our single "ScopDetection String Operation Patch" (r187102) can be viewed on:
http://188.40.87...
2013 Aug 01
4
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Update of Polly compile-time performance on LLVM test-suite
...have changed the ignore_small abs value to 0.05 from the original 0.01, which means benchmarks with the performance delta less then 0.05s would be skipped. In that case, the results seem to be much more stable.
However, I have noticed that there are many other Polly patches between the two version r185399 and r187116. They may also affect the compile-time performance. I would re-evaluate LLVM-testsuite to see the performance improvements caused only by our
>
>Also, it may be interesting to compare against the non-polly case to see
>how much overhead there is still due to our scop detetion...
2013 Aug 01
0
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Update of Polly compile-time performance on LLVM test-suite
...e changed the ignore_small abs value to 0.05 from the original 0.01, which means benchmarks with the performance delta less then 0.05s would be skipped. In that case,the results seem to be much more stable.
> However, I have noticed that there are many other Polly patches between the two version r185399 and r187116. They may also affect the compile-time performance. I would re-evaluate LLVM-testsuite to see the performance improvements caused only by our
I doubt the Polly changes changed performance a much. However, there
have been huge numbers of patches to LLVM/clang. Those obviously changed...
2013 Jul 31
0
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Update of Polly compile-time performance on LLVM test-suite
On 07/30/2013 10:03 AM, Star Tan wrote:
> Hi Tobias and all Polly developers,
>
> I have re-evaluated the Polly compile-time performance using newest
> LLVM/Polly source code. You can view the results on
> http://188.40.87.11:8000
> <http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/16?compare_to=9&baseline=9&aggregation_fn=median>.
>
> Especially, I also evaluated
2013 Aug 02
1
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Update of Polly compile-time performance on LLVM test-suite
...anged the ignore_small abs value to 0.05 from the original 0.01, which means benchmarks with the performance delta less then 0.05s would be skipped. In that case,the results seem to be much more stable.
>> However, I have noticed that there are many other Polly patches between the two version r185399 and r187116. They may also affect the compile-time performance. I would re-evaluate LLVM-testsuite to see the performance improvements caused only by our
>
>I doubt the Polly changes changed performance a much. However, there
>have been huge numbers of patches to LLVM/clang. Those obvious...
2013 Jul 30
3
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Update of Polly compile-time performance on LLVM test-suite
Hi Tobias and all Polly developers,
I have re-evaluated the Polly compile-time performance using newest LLVM/Polly source code. You can view the results on http://188.40.87.11:8000.
Especially, I also evaluated our r187102 patch file that avoids expensive failure string operations in normal execution. Specifically, I evaluated two cases for it:
Polly-NoCodeGen: clang -O3 -load