search for: scimark

FYI, Yesterday's Slashdot had an article about Linux compiler benchmarks from Coyote Gulch (Scott Ladd). In this update he compares GCC and ICC. You can read the article here: http://www.coyotegulch.com/reviews/linux_compilers/ Of particular note was his use of SciMark 2.0 which is a NIST developed benchmark for scientific computing. Its available in both java and C and computes a MFLOPS number. It would be good to include this in our test suite if we can (hint, hint, John). You can find it here: http://math.nist.gov/scimark2/index.html Reid. -------------- nex...

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 12:04:47PM -0500, Jack Howarth wrote: >> My concern is that, without strict enforcement of the triaging >> serious P1-type bugs, the major llvm.org releases will devolve into a >> continual exchange of one set of major regressions for another set.

..., > > Yesterday's Slashdot had an article about Linux compiler benchmarks from > Coyote Gulch (Scott Ladd). In this update he compares GCC and ICC. You > can read the article here: > http://www.coyotegulch.com/reviews/linux_compilers/ > > Of particular note was his use of SciMark 2.0 which is a NIST developed > benchmark for scientific computing. Its available in both java and C and > computes a MFLOPS number. It would be good to include this in our test > suite if we can (hint, hint, John). You can find it here: > http://math.nist.gov/scimark2/index.html >...

Using the SciMark 2.0 code from http://math.nist.gov/scimark2/scimark2_1c.zip compiled with the same... make CFLAGS="-O3 -march=native" I am able to reproduce the 22% performance regression in the run time of the Sparse matmult benchmark. For 10 runs of the scimark2 benechmark, I get 998.439+/-0.4828 wit...

...n Harrop wrote: > On Monday 02 February 2009 20:37:47 you wrote: >> On Feb 2, 2009, at 12:39 PM, Jon Harrop wrote: >>> On Monday 02 February 2009 06:10:26 Chris Lattner wrote: >>>> I'm seeing exactly identical .s files with -msse2 and -msse3 on the >>>> scimark version I have. Can you please send the output of: >>>> >>>> llvm-gcc -O3 MonteCarlo.c -S -msse2 -o MonteCarlo.2.s >>>> llvm-gcc -O3 MonteCarlo.c -S -msse3 -o MonteCarlo.3.s >>>> >>>> llvm-gcc -O3 MonteCarlo.c -S -msse2 -o MonteCarlo.2.ll...

...; wrote: > > I just remembered an anomalous result that I stumbled upon whilst > > tweaking the command-line options to llvm-gcc. Specifically, the -msse3 > > flag > > The -msse3 flag? Does the -msse2 flag have a similar effect? Yes: $ llvm-gcc -Wall -lm -O3 -msse2 *.c -o scimark2 $ ./scimark2 Composite Score: 525.99 FFT Mflops: 538.35 (N=1024) SOR Mflops: 472.29 (100 x 100) MonteCarlo: Mflops: 120.92 Sparse matmult Mflops: 585.14 (N=1000, nz=5000) LU Mflops: 913.27 (M=100, N=100) But -msse does not:...

...ile LLVM, as it is using C code, it is taking advantage of memory allocation by hand. On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote: > > The release of a new code generator in Mono 2.2 prompted me to benchmark the > performance of various VMs using the SciMark2 benchmark on an 8x 2.1GHz > 64-bit Opteron and I have published the results here: > > http://flyingfrogblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/mono-22.html > > The LLVM results were generated using llvm-gcc 4.2.1 on the C version of > SciMark2 with the following command-line options: > &gt...

...rated code, introduced by the llvm 3.6 release, don't seem to be limited to this 8 queens puzzle" solver test case. See... http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=llvm-clang-3.5-3.6-rc1&num=1 where a bit hit in the performance of the Sparse Matrix Multiply test of the SciMark v2.0 benchmark was observed as well as others. Do you really want to release 3.6 with this level of performance regression? Jack On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Jack Howarth <howarth.mailing.lists at gmail.com> wrote: > Also confirmed with the llvm 3.5.1 release and the l...

The release of a new code generator in Mono 2.2 prompted me to benchmark the performance of various VMs using the SciMark2 benchmark on an 8x 2.1GHz 64-bit Opteron and I have published the results here: http://flyingfrogblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/mono-22.html The LLVM results were generated using llvm-gcc 4.2.1 on the C version of SciMark2 with the following command-line options: llvm-gcc -Wall -lm -O2 -funrol...

I think it’s generally true that whenever branches can reliably be predicted branching is faster than a cmov that involves speculative execution, and I would guess that your assessment regarding looping on input values is probably correct. I believe the code that actually creates most of the transformation you’re interested in here is in SelectionDAGLegalize::ExpandNode() in LegalizeDAG.cpp. The

I submitted the problem report to clang's bugzilla but no one seems to care so I have to send it to the mailing list. clang 3.7 svn (trunk 229055 as the time I was to report this problem) generates slower code than 3.5 (Apple LLVM version 6.0 (clang-600.0.56) (based on LLVM 3.5svn)) for the following code. It is a "8 queens puzzle" solver written as an educational example. As