search for: scimark2_1c

I finally got around to testing this on a Bloomfield processor (Early 2009 MacPro 2x2.66 GHz dual-quad core) and the regressions from http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=22589 are even more severe. For 10 runs of scimark2_1c built with "-O3 -march=native"... llvm 3.5.1 1204.16+/-2.66 Mflops 3.6 branch 866.49+/-1.26 Mflops Do you seriously want to ship with a 39% performance regression in a major benchmark? Jack On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org&...

I am seeing the same problems using 'llvm-ld' with llvm-gcc at -O4 on x86_64 Fedora 8 linux as on Darwin. Another example of this is building the scimark2_1c benchmark... http://math.nist.gov/scimark2/download_c.html as follows on x86_64 Fedora 8... /home/howarth/llvm-gcc42-work/bin/gcc -O4 -m64 -c FFT.c /home/howarth/llvm-gcc42-work/bin/gcc -O4 -m64 -c kernel.c /home/howarth/llvm-gcc42-work/bin/gcc -O4 -m64 -c Stopwatch.c /home/howarth/llvm-gcc42...

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Joerg Sonnenberger" <joerg at britannica.bec.de> > To: cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu, "llvmdev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 7:42:11 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] [3.6 Release] RC3 has been tagged > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 11:12:20AM -0800, Hans Wennborg wrote: > > I

...<howarth.mailing.lists at gmail.com> wrote: >> I finally got around to testing this on a Bloomfield processor (Early >> 2009 MacPro 2x2.66 GHz dual-quad core) and the regressions from >> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=22589 are even more severe. For >> 10 runs of scimark2_1c built with "-O3 -march=native"... >> >> llvm 3.5.1 1204.16+/-2.66 Mflops >> 3.6 branch 866.49+/-1.26 Mflops >> > > The proposed patch mitigates the damage on Bloomfield... > > patched 3.6svn 1073.69+/-1.97 > > so we are only regressing the b...

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 with the release llvm clang 3.5.1 compiler and 1217.363+/-...

The regressions in the performance of generated 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.