search for: smallpt

...sc/oourafft -1.71% MultiSource/Benchmarks/mafft/pairlocalalign -1.16% External/SPEC/CFP2006/447_dealII/447_dealII -1.06% — Regressions — MultiSource/Benchmarks/Olden/bh/bh 22.47% MultiSource/Benchmarks/Bullet/bullet 7.31% SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++-EH/spirit 5.68% SingleSource/Benchmarks/SmallPT/smallpt 3.91% Thanks, Nadav

...hmarks/mafft/pairlocalalign -1.16% > External/SPEC/CFP2006/447_dealII/447_dealII -1.06% > > — Regressions — > MultiSource/Benchmarks/Olden/bh/bh 22.47% > MultiSource/Benchmarks/Bullet/bullet 7.31% > SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++-EH/spirit 5.68% > SingleSource/Benchmarks/SmallPT/smallpt 3.91% > > Thanks, > Nadav > > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

...-1.16% >> External/SPEC/CFP2006/447_dealII/447_dealII -1.06% >> >> — Regressions — >> MultiSource/Benchmarks/Olden/bh/bh 22.47% >> MultiSource/Benchmarks/Bullet/bullet 7.31% >> SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++-EH/spirit 5.68% >> SingleSource/Benchmarks/SmallPT/smallpt 3.91% >> >> Thanks, >> Nadav >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev ----...

Hi Martin, > Here's a more recent one: > > http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=gcc_46_llvm29&num=1 a few comments: (1) The smallpt benchmark uses openmp which dragonegg supports but clang does not. That's why on the machines with N processors the clang compiled binary takes N times as long as the others: it is only using one processor unlike the others. (2) On the Himeno benchmark dragonegg beats the pants off everyone el...

.../SPEC/CFP2006/447_dealII/447_dealII -1.06% >>> >>> — Regressions — >>> MultiSource/Benchmarks/Olden/bh/bh 22.47% >>> MultiSource/Benchmarks/Bullet/bullet 7.31% >>> SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++-EH/spirit 5.68% >>> SingleSource/Benchmarks/SmallPT/smallpt 3.91% >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Nadav >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >>> http://lists.cs.uiu...

...nchmarks/mafft/pairlocalalign -1.16% > External/SPEC/CFP2006/447_dealII/447_dealII -1.06% > > — Regressions — > MultiSource/Benchmarks/Olden/bh/bh 22.47% > MultiSource/Benchmarks/Bullet/bullet 7.31% > SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++-EH/spirit 5.68% > SingleSource/Benchmarks/SmallPT/smallpt 3.91% > > Thanks, > Nadav > > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > -------------- next part --------------...

...4769 0.0186 SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++-EH/spirit 1.13% 3.2769 3.3139 0.0079 External/SPEC/CFP2000/188_ammp/188_ammp 1.01% 1.8632 1.8820 0.0059 Performance Regressions - Execution Time Δ Previous Current σ MultiSource/Benchmarks/Olden/bh/bh 19.24% 1.1551 1.3773 0.0021 SingleSource/Benchmarks/SmallPT/smallpt 3.75% 5.8779 6.0983 0.0146 SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/Large/ray 1.08% 1.8194 1.8390 0.0009 Performance Improvements - Execution Time Δ Previous Current σ SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/matmul_f64_4x4 -53.67% 1.4064 0.6516 0.0007 External/Nurbs/nurbs -19.47% 2.5389 2.0445 0.0029 MultiS...

[and copy to list] Jianzhou Zhao wrote: > Hi all, > > This talk includes the performance comparison between LLVM and GCC > (page 30/31): LLVM wins a lot for both compilation and execution time. > http://llvm.org/pubs/2008-10-04-ACAT-LLVM-Intro.pdf > That talk and data were in 2008, I was wondering if there is any > updated performance evaluation between the latest LLVM and

...ng OpenMP or not, yes, I mentioned this in another email in this thread. I particularly enjoyed the use of -O0 :) They know about these issues since they added notes about -O0 and openmp to one of their previous sets of benchmarks, probably because of feedback. They never seemed to realize that smallpt uses openmp though! I notice that they do have a note about openmp after the graphicsmagick benchmark, and don't report results for himeno (they were using -O0 for this before), so I guess that's progress. Ciao, Duncan. and (in this case) are testing on a micro architecture that only o...

On Nov 3, 2011, at 3:27 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > On 11/03/11 10:11, Rotem, Nadav wrote: >> And this one, with LLVM ~3.0: >> >> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_bulldozer_compilers&num=1 > > What, no dragonegg?! :) It is worth pointing out that the methodology of Phoronix makes their results basically useless. They willfully test -O0

Hi all, This talk includes the performance comparison between LLVM and GCC (page 30/31): LLVM wins a lot for both compilation and execution time. http://llvm.org/pubs/2008-10-04-ACAT-LLVM-Intro.pdf That talk and data were in 2008, I was wondering if there is any updated performance evaluation between the latest LLVM and GCC? Thanks. -- Jianzhou

...SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++-EH/spirit1.13%3.27693.31390.0079 > External/SPEC/CFP2000/188_ammp/188_ammp1.01%1.86321.88200.0059 > > > Performance Regressions - Execution TimeΔPreviousCurrentσ > MultiSource/Benchmarks/Olden/bh/bh19.24%1.15511.37730.0021 > SingleSource/Benchmarks/SmallPT/smallpt3.75%5.87796.09830.0146 > SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/Large/ray1.08%1.81941.83900.0009 > > > Performance Improvements - Execution TimeΔPreviousCurrentσ > SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/matmul_f64_4x4-53.67%1.40640.65160.0007 > External/Nurbs/nurbs-19.47%2.53892.04450.002...

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".

tl;dr in low data situations we don’t look at past information, and that increases the false positive regression rate. We should look at the possibly incorrect recent past runs to fix that. Motivation: LNT’s current regression detection system has false positive rate that is too high to make it useful. With test suites as large as the llvm “test-suite” a single report will show hundreds of

Hi, I'm new to llvm and am trying to run benchmarks from the test-suite using lnt to check loop-vectorization for various benchmarks. Test are compiling and executing fine, but I am not getting optimization remarks while using flags like -Rpass-missed=loop-vectorize and -Rpass-analysis=loop-vectorize I've tried running it like this: lnt runtest test-suite --sandbox SANDBOX --cc

....SingleSource/Benchmarks/Polybench/linear-algebra/kernels/syr2k/syr2k.exec > 12. 36.14% cumulative (1.10% - 63.21s this program) nts.MultiSource/Benchmarks/TSVC/IndirectAddressing-dbl/IndirectAddressing-dbl.exec > 13. 37.22% cumulative (1.08% - 62.35s this program) nts.SingleSource/Benchmarks/SmallPT/smallpt.exec > 14. 38.30% cumulative (1.08% - 62.30s this program) nts.MultiSource/Benchmarks/nbench/nbench.exec > 15. 39.37% cumulative (1.07% - 61.98s this program) nts.MultiSource/Benchmarks/TSVC/ControlFlow-dbl/ControlFlow-dbl.exec > 16. 40.40% cumulative (1.03% - 59.50s this program)...

...> MultiSource/Benchmarks/TSVC/Symbolics-f 1.6243 1.6612 1.02 +2% > MultiSource/Benchmarks/mafft/pairlocala 23.8979 24.0547 1.01 +1% > SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/oourafft 3.0374 3.1846 1.05 +5% > SingleSource/Benchmarks/SmallPT/smallpt 6.5533 6.6683 1.02 +2% > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Min (21) - - 0.97 - > ------------------------------------------------------------------...

Hi Chandler, Thanks for fixing the problem with the insertps mask. Generally the new shuffle lowering looks promising, however there are some cases where the codegen is now worse causing runtime performance regressions in some of our internal codebase. You have already mentioned how the new shuffle lowering is missing some features; for example, you explicitly said that we currently lack of

Hello testers, Start your engines, RC3 has just been tagged (at r229050 on the branch). If this one looks good, it will become the release. There has been quite a bit of activity on the branch since RC2; let's hope it's all goodness :-) Please let me know how it looks, and upload binaries to the sftp as usual. Thanks for all your efforts so far! - Hans

...785679872|2.850246735| 0.07|21785679867| 0| 2.85101485| 0.04|21785679868| 0| |SingleSource/Benchmarks/Shootout/Shootout-strcat.test | 232|0.100245468| 319817791|0.100168107| 0.08| 319817786| 0|0.100184823| 0.06| 319817787| 0| |SingleSource/Benchmarks/SmallPT/smallpt.test | 40|5.239863596|30531918340|5.240930496| -0.02|30531918346| 0|5.239798764| 0|30531918345| 0| |SingleSource/Benchmarks/Stanford/Bubblesort.test | 441|0.015584076| 76543755|0.015530674| 0.34| 76543751|...