search for: spec2k6

On 10/25/2017 12:10 PM, Evgeny Astigeevich via llvm-dev wrote: > > Hi Chandler, > > I ran the LNT benchmarks and SPEC2k6.train on AArch64 Cortex-A57. I > used revisions: Clang 316561, LLVM 316563. > > Options: -O3 -mcpu=cortex-a57 -fomit-frame-pointer > -fexperimental-new-pass-manager > > Regressions: execution time increase > > LNT > > MultiSource/Benchmarks/FreeBench/fourinarow/fouri...

...llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, nd <nd at arm.com> > *Subject: *Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Switching to the new pass manager by > default > > On 10/25/2017 12:10 PM, Evgeny Astigeevich via llvm-dev wrote: > > Hi Chandler, > > I ran the LNT benchmarks and SPEC2k6.train on AArch64 Cortex-A57. > I used revisions: Clang 316561, LLVM 316563. > > Options: -O3 -mcpu=cortex-a57 -fomit-frame-pointer > -fexperimental-new-pass-manager > > Regressions: execution time increase > > LNT > > MultiSource/Benchmarks/Free...

Hello LLVM, I encountered the following bugs when I compiled my program in debug version. Could someone help me with that ? Really appreciate that. Thanks, Take the mcf program in SPEC2K6 as example. The compiling options are : clang -O0 -c -emit-llvm -o obj/mcf.o -g -DSPEC_CPU mcf.c llvm-link -o mcf.bc obj/mcf.o opt -o mcf.opt.bc mcf.bc -O2 llc -O0 -relocation-model=static -o mcf.s mcf.opt.bc clang mcf.s -o mcf /tmp/mcf-CvkpnA.o:(.debug_info+0x48d): undefined reference to `.Lline...

Hi, Chris Lattner wrote: > This is fine to me in principle, but please make sure this doesn't > impact compile time or memory usage of llc somehow. OK. Any recommended way to do this? Is there some nice way to benchmark speed + memory consumption of llc in LLVM testing infra at the moment or should I just use 'top' to the inspect memory consumption and 'time' for speed

...39;time' for speed measurements with a code generation from > a big bitcode? Please compare a release-asserts (make ENABLE_OPTIMIZED=1 DISABLE_ASSERTIONS=1) builds with and without your patch. Just run 'llc' on a collection of large bc files (e.g. kimwitu++ from the testsuite, some SPEC2K6 programs if you have access to it, etc) and compare them. Thanks! -Chris

...On Nov 5, 2013 10:10 AM, "lipengcheng" <pli at cs.rochester.edu> wrote: > Hello LLVM, > > I encountered the following bugs when I compiled my program in debug version. > Could someone help me with that ? Really appreciate that. Thanks, > > Take the mcf program in SPEC2K6 as example. The compiling options are : > > clang -O0 -c -emit-llvm -o obj/mcf.o -g -DSPEC_CPU mcf.c > llvm-link -o mcf.bc obj/mcf.o > opt -o mcf.opt.bc mcf.bc -O2 > llc -O0 -relocation-model=static -o mcf.s mcf.opt.bc > clang mcf.s -o mcf > /tmp/mcf-CvkpnA.o:(.debug_info+0x48...

...it off if they really mean it. The rationale is that: * Contracted operations increase precision (less rounding steps) * It performs equal or faster on all architectures I know (true everywhere?) * Users already expect that (certainly, GCC users do) * Makes us look good on benchmarks :) A recent SPEC2k6 comparison Linaro did for AArch64, enabling -ffp-contract=fast took the edge of GCC in a number of cases and in some of them made them comparable in performance. So, any reasons not to? If we go with it, we need to first finish the job that Sebastian was dong on the test-suite, then just turn it o...

...ov 5, 2013 10:10 AM, "lipengcheng" <pli at cs.rochester.edu> wrote: > Hello LLVM, > > I encountered the following bugs when I compiled my program in debug > version. > Could someone help me with that ? Really appreciate that. Thanks, > > Take the mcf program in SPEC2K6 as example. The compiling options are : > > clang -O0 -c -emit-llvm -o obj/mcf.o -g -DSPEC_CPU mcf.c > llvm-link -o mcf.bc obj/mcf.o > opt -o mcf.opt.bc mcf.bc -O2 > llc -O0 -relocation-model=static -o mcf.s mcf.opt.bc > clang mcf.s -o mcf > /tmp/mcf-CvkpnA.o:(.debug_info+0x48d...

...gcheng" <pli at cs.rochester.edu> wrote: > >> Hello LLVM, >> >> I encountered the following bugs when I compiled my program in debug >> version. >> Could someone help me with that ? Really appreciate that. Thanks, >> >> Take the mcf program in SPEC2K6 as example. The compiling options are : >> >> clang -O0 -c -emit-llvm -o obj/mcf.o -g -DSPEC_CPU mcf.c >> llvm-link -o mcf.bc obj/mcf.o >> opt -o mcf.opt.bc mcf.bc -O2 >> llc -O0 -relocation-model=static -o mcf.s mcf.opt.bc >> clang mcf.s -o mcf >> /tmp/mcf...

...ster.edu> wrote: >> >>> Hello LLVM, >>> >>> I encountered the following bugs when I compiled my program in debug >>> version. >>> Could someone help me with that ? Really appreciate that. Thanks, >>> >>> Take the mcf program in SPEC2K6 as example. The compiling options are : >>> >>> clang -O0 -c -emit-llvm -o obj/mcf.o -g -DSPEC_CPU mcf.c >>> llvm-link -o mcf.bc obj/mcf.o >>> opt -o mcf.opt.bc mcf.bc -O2 >>> llc -O0 -relocation-model=static -o mcf.s mcf.opt.bc >>> clang mcf.s...

Hi Michael, Thanks for testing this on your benchmarks and target. I think the results will help guide the direction we go. I tested the feature with spec2k/2k6 on AArch64/Kryo and saw minor performance swings, aside from a large (30%) improvement in spec2k6/libquantum. The primary loop in that benchmark has a conditional store, so I expected it to benefit. Regarding the cost model, I think the vectorizer's modeling of the conditional stores is good. We could potentially improve it by using profile information if available. But I'm not sure of...

...; * Contracted operations increase precision (less rounding steps) >> * It performs equal or faster on all architectures I know (true >> everywhere?) >> * Users already expect that (certainly, GCC users do) >> * Makes us look good on benchmarks :) >> >> A recent SPEC2k6 comparison Linaro did for AArch64, enabling >> -ffp-contract=fast took the edge of GCC in a number of cases and in >> some of them made them comparable in performance. So, any reasons not >> to? >> >> If we go with it, we need to first finish the job that Sebastian was...

...codeaurora.org> wrote: > > Hi Michael, > > Thanks for testing this on your benchmarks and target. I think the results will help guide the direction we go. I tested the feature with spec2k/2k6 on AArch64/Kryo and saw minor performance swings, aside from a large (30%) improvement in spec2k6/libquantum. The primary loop in that benchmark has a conditional store, so I expected it to benefit. > > Regarding the cost model, I think the vectorizer's modeling of the conditional stores is good. We could potentially improve it by using profile information if available. But I'm n...

Hi, I think these two patches are related to the topic: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41578 “[SCEV] Do not cache S -> V if S is not equivalent of V” * It’s committed. It can cause generation of redundant instructions. We’ve got regressions due to it. The biggest one is 7.31% regression in Spec2k6 401.bzip2 on Cortex-A57(AArch64). https://reviews.llvm.org/D42290 “[SCEV] Clear poison flags during expansion of SCEV” * This patch tries to fix regressions due to the D41578 patch. Thanks, Evgeny Astigeevich From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> on behalf of Maxim Kazan...

...ase precision (less rounding steps) >>>> * It performs equal or faster on all architectures I know (true everywhere?) >>>> * Users already expect that (certainly, GCC users do) >>>> * Makes us look good on benchmarks :) >>>> >>>> A recent SPEC2k6 comparison Linaro did for AArch64, enabling >>>> -ffp-contract=fast took the edge of GCC in a number of cases and in >>>> some of them made them comparable in performance. So, any reasons not >>>> to? >>>> >>>> If we go with it, we need t...

...Michael, > > > > Thanks for testing this on your benchmarks and target. I think the > > results will help guide the direction we go. I tested the feature > > with spec2k/2k6 on AArch64/Kryo and saw minor performance swings, > > aside from a large (30%) improvement in spec2k6/libquantum. The > > primary loop in that benchmark has a conditional store, so I > > expected it to benefit. > > > > Regarding the cost model, I think the vectorizer's modeling of the > > conditional stores is good. We could potentially improve it by > > usi...

...ized conditional stores in the loop vectorizer Hi Michael, Thanks for testing this on your benchmarks and target. I think the results will help guide the direction we go. I tested the feature with spec2k/2k6 on AArch64/Kryo and saw minor performance swings, aside from a large (30%) improvement in spec2k6/libquantum. The primary loop in that benchmark has a conditional store, so I expected it to benefit. Regarding the cost model, I think the vectorizer's modeling of the conditional stores is good. We could potentially improve it by using profile information if available. But I'm not sure of...

...>>>>> * It performs equal or faster on all architectures I know (true everywhere?) >>>>>> * Users already expect that (certainly, GCC users do) >>>>>> * Makes us look good on benchmarks :) >>>>>> >>>>>> A recent SPEC2k6 comparison Linaro did for AArch64, enabling >>>>>> -ffp-contract=fast took the edge of GCC in a number of cases and in >>>>>> some of them made them comparable in performance. So, any reasons not >>>>>> to? >>>>>> >>>...

...gt; > > Hi Michael, > > > > Thanks for testing this on your benchmarks and target. I think the results > will help guide the direction we go. I tested the feature with spec2k/2k6 > on AArch64/Kryo and saw minor performance swings, aside from a large (30%) > improvement in spec2k6/libquantum. The primary loop in that benchmark has a > conditional store, so I expected it to benefit. > > > > Regarding the cost model, I think the vectorizer's modeling of the > conditional stores is good. We could potentially improve it by using > profile information if...

...gt; > > Hi Michael, > > > > Thanks for testing this on your benchmarks and target. I think the results > will help guide the direction we go. I tested the feature with spec2k/2k6 > on AArch64/Kryo and saw minor performance swings, aside from a large (30%) > improvement in spec2k6/libquantum. The primary loop in that benchmark has a > conditional store, so I expected it to benefit. > > > > Regarding the cost model, I think the vectorizer's modeling of the > conditional stores is good. We could potentially improve it by using > profile information if...