search for: smg2000

The vectorizer buildbot currently shows 4 miscompiles: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-x86_64-darwin10-nt-O3-vectorize/builds/1727/steps/lnt.nightly-test/logs/tests.FAIL MultiSource/Applications/oggenc/oggenc.execution_time MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASCI_Purple/SMG2000/smg2000.execution_time MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/consumer-typeset/consumer-typeset.execution_time MultiSource/Benchmarks/Olden/power/power.execution_time I had looked at the first one (oggenc) a couple of weeks ago, and because there is only one significant source file, it was straightforward...

...f/db_default/v4/nts/1283/graph?test.30=3> 2.37% 2.0844 > 2.1339 0.0010 3.22% 0.0010 > MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C/agrep/agrep > <http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/1283/graph?test.162=3> 2.35% 0.4337 > 0.4439 0.0002 1.79% 0.0002 > MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASCI_Purple/SMG2000/smg2000 > <http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/1283/graph?test.310=3> 2.32% 2.7068 > 2.7695 0.0071 1.48% 0.0071 > MultiSource/Applications/hexxagon/hexxagon > <http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/1283/graph?test.243=3> 2.28% 0.9968 > 1.0195 0.0005 2.89% 0.0005 >...

...-3.4% External/SPEC/CFP2000/183.equake/Output/183.equake -3.2% MultiSource/Applications/hbd/Output/hbd -3.1% MultiSource/Applications/minisat/Output/minisat -3.0% MultiSource/Benchmarks/tramp3d-v4/Output/tramp3d-v4 -2.9% External/skidmarks10/Output/skidmarks -2.9% MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASCI_Purple/SMG2000/Output/smg2000 -2.8% External/SPEC/CINT95/132.ijpeg/Output/132.ijpeg -2.8% MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/telecomm-gsm/Output/telecomm-gsm -2.8% MultiSource/Benchmarks/mediabench/gsm/toast/Output/toast -2.7% External/SPEC/CINT95/134.perl/Output/134.perl -2.6% MultiSource/Benchmarks/mediabench/jpeg/...

...1283/graph?test.30=3> 2.37% 2.0844 >> 2.1339 0.0010 3.22% 0.0010 >> MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C/agrep/agrep >> <http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/1283/graph?test.162=3> 2.35% 0.4337 >> 0.4439 0.0002 1.79% 0.0002 >> MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASCI_Purple/SMG2000/smg2000 >> <http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/1283/graph?test.310=3> 2.32% 2.7068 >> 2.7695 0.0071 1.48% 0.0071 >> MultiSource/Applications/hexxagon/hexxagon >> <http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/1283/graph?test.243=3> 2.28% 0.9968 >> 1.0195 0.000...

...> 2.37% 2.0844 >>> 2.1339 0.0010 3.22% 0.0010 >>> MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C/agrep/agrep >>> <http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/1283/graph?test.162=3> 2.35% 0.4337 >>> 0.4439 0.0002 1.79% 0.0002 >>> MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASCI_Purple/SMG2000/smg2000 >>> <http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/1283/graph?test.310=3> 2.32% 2.7068 >>> 2.7695 0.0071 1.48% 0.0071 >>> MultiSource/Applications/hexxagon/hexxagon >>> <http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/1283/graph?test.243=3> 2.28% 0.9968 >&...

...Benchmarks/Prolangs-C/gnugo/gnugo.compile 6.93% 0.8243 0.8814 0.0106 > MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/office-ispell/office-ispell.compile 6.48% 1.7091 > 1.8199 0.0047 > MultiSource/Benchmarks/MallocBench/cfrac/cfrac.compile 6.45% 1.0109 1.0761 0.0116 > MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASCI_Purple/SMG2000/smg2000.compile 6.44% 6.6061 7.0314 > 0.0251 > MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/consumer-lame/consumer-lame.compile 6.34% 4.5856 > 4.8764 0.0186 > MultiSource/Applications/hbd/hbd.compile 6.34% 1.7050 1.8131 0.0110 > MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C/TimberWolfMC/timberwolfmc.compile 6...

...t;>>> 2.1339 0.0010 3.22% 0.0010 >>>> MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C/agrep/agrep >>>> <http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/1283/graph?test.162=3> 2.35% 0.4337 >>>> 0.4439 0.0002 1.79% 0.0002 >>>> MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASCI_Purple/SMG2000/smg2000 >>>> <http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/1283/graph?test.310=3> 2.32% 2.7068 >>>> 2.7695 0.0071 1.48% 0.0071 >>>> MultiSource/Applications/hexxagon/hexxagon >>>> <http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/1283/graph?test.243=3> 2....

...ngPass". The top 5 benchmarks are listed as follows: SingleSource/Regression/C++/2003-09-29-NonPODsByValue-38.46% SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/flops-19.30% SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/himenobmtxpa-12.94% MultiSource/Benchmarks/VersaBench/ecbdes/ecbdes-12.68% MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASCI_Purple/SMG2000/smg2000-10.68% Unfortunately, there are also two serious execution-time performance regressions: SingleSource/Benchmarks/Adobe-C++/simple_types_constant_folding204.19% SingleSource/Benchmarks/Polybench/linear-algebra/solvers/dynprog/dynprog44.58% By looking into the simple_types_constant_folding be...

...hash: -25.67% (9.70 => 12.19) > singlesource/Benchmarks/Shootout/methcall: 23.51% (7.74 => 5.92) > multisource/Applications/lambda-0.1.3/lambda: 18.80% (8.67 => 7.04) > multisource/Applications/minisat/minisat: 13.07% (24.25 => 21.08) > multisource/Benchmarks/ASCI_Purple/SMG2000/smg2000: -7.93% (10.84 => 11.70) > JIT: > singlesource/Benchmarks/Adobe-C++/loop_unroll: -7.34% (14.30 => 15.35) > singlesource/Benchmarks/Adobe-C++/simple_types_constant_folding: 36.05% (25.05 => 16.02) > singlesource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/fftbench: -381.65% (1.09 => 5....

...ngs-C/gnugo/gnugo.compile 6.93% 0.8243 0.8814 0.0106 >> MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/office-ispell/office-ispell.compile 6.48% 1.7091 >> 1.8199 0.0047 >> MultiSource/Benchmarks/MallocBench/cfrac/cfrac.compile 6.45% 1.0109 1.0761 0.0116 >> MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASCI_Purple/SMG2000/smg2000.compile 6.44% 6.6061 7.0314 >> 0.0251 >> MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/consumer-lame/consumer-lame.compile 6.34% 4.5856 >> 4.8764 0.0186 >> MultiSource/Applications/hbd/hbd.compile 6.34% 1.7050 1.8131 0.0110 >> MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C/TimberWolfMC/ti...

At 2013-09-09 13:07:07,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >On 09/09/2013 05:18 AM, Star Tan wrote: >> >> At 2013-09-09 05:52:35,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >> >>> On 09/08/2013 08:03 PM, Star Tan wrote: >>> Also, I wonder if your runs include the dependence analysis. If this is >>> the

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".

...ngPass". The top 5 benchmarks are listed as follows: SingleSource/Regression/C++/2003-09-29-NonPODsByValue-38.46% SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/flops-19.30% SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/himenobmtxpa-12.94% MultiSource/Benchmarks/VersaBench/ecbdes/ecbdes-12.68% MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASCI_Purple/SMG2000/smg2000-10.68% Unfortunately, there are also two serious execution-time performance regressions: SingleSource/Benchmarks/Adobe-C++/simple_types_constant_folding204.19% SingleSource/Benchmarks/Polyb! ench/linear-algebra/solvers/dynprog/dynprog44.58% By looking into the simple_types_constant_folding...

.../Benchmarks/BitBench/drop3/drop3 | * | * | MultiSource/Benchmarks/BitBench/uuencode/uuencode | * | * | MultiSource/Benchmarks/BitBench/uudecode/uudecode | * | * | MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASCI_Purple/SMG2000/smg2000 | * | * | MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/security-blowfish/security-blowfish | * | * | MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/network-patricia/network-patricia | * | * | MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/security-rijndael/security-rijndael...

...0.31446540880501 Benchmarks/Prolangs-C++/primes/primes 0.1916 0.1923 0.36534446764092 Benchmarks/TSVC/GlobalDataFlow-flt/GlobalDa 1.2514 1.2567 0.42352565127056 Benchmarks/Olden/power/power 0.7097 0.7129 0.45089474425813 Benchmarks/ASCI_Purple/SMG2000/smg2000 1.4904 1.4972 0.45625335480408 Applications/lemon/lemon 0.6774 0.6805 0.45763212282255 Benchmarks/MiBench/telecomm-FFT/telecomm-ff 0.0209 0.021 0.47846889952154 Benchmarks/7zip/7zip-benchmark 5.9521 5.9811 0.4...

...* 0.62 | - - n/a n/a MultiSource/Applications/viterbi/viterbi | 0.0542 6944 0.0405 * 0.0393 | 21.15 38.19 19.29 * 19.40 | 0.55 1.10 n/a n/a MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASCI_Purple/SMG2000/smg2000 | 3.4553 637348 4.8566 * 4.0849 | 10.71 12.59 10.20 * 14.23 | 0.85 1.05 n/a n/a MultiSource/Benchmarks/Fhourstones-3.1/fhourstones3.1 | 0.0767 10752 0.0642 * 0.0680...

...* 0.67 | - - n/a n/a MultiSource/Applications/viterbi/viterbi | 0.0560 7044 0.0480 * 0.0440 | 22.23 37.97 23.59 * 23.68 | 0.59 0.94 n/a n/a MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASCI_Purple/SMG2000/smg2000 | 4.5362 620828 7.2964 * 6.2523 | 22.45 29.95 23.41 * 31.07 | 0.75 0.96 n/a n/a MultiSource/Benchmarks/Fhourstones-3.1/fhourstones3.1 | 0.0680 10208 0.0640 * 0.0680...

Andy and I briefly discussed this the other day, we have not yet got chance to list a detailed pass order for the pre- and post- IPO scalar optimizations. This is wish-list in our mind: pre-IPO: based on the ordering he propose, get rid of the inlining (or just inline tiny func), get rid of all loop xforms... post-IPO: get rid of inlining, or maybe we still need it, only

LLVMers, The 2.2 prerelease is now available for testing: http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.2/ If anyone can help test this release, I ask that you do the following: 1) Build llvm and llvm-gcc (or use a binary). You may build release (default) or debug. You may pick llvm-gcc-4.0, llvm-gcc-4.2, or both. 2) Run 'make check'. 3) In llvm-test, run 'make TEST=nightly report'. 4) When

...* 0.63 | - - n/a n/a MultiSource/Applications/viterbi/viterbi | 0.0455 7084 0.0391 * 0.0384 | 14.87 22.99 18.32 * 18.38 | 0.65 0.81 n/a n/a MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASCI_Purple/SMG2000/smg2000 | 2.9651 620820 4.2171 * 3.6177 | 10.00 13.34 10.16 * 13.94 | 0.75 0.98 n/a n/a MultiSource/Benchmarks/Fhourstones-3.1/fhourstones3.1 | 0.0694 10680 0.0606 * 0.0617...