search for: timberwolfmc

...please test it with all the MultiSource/Applications. > > > > It's 1.7% overall. > > That seems somewhat steep. Can you see how much of the scheduling > slow down there is? I got some times from the nightly report, so this is overall compile time. The worst slowdown is on timberwolfmc "llc compile" which has a 5% slowdown. The JIT slows down 6%. Everything else looks to be 1% or less. In some cases the times with the change are better, probably because this change gets rid of the "pop everything off and push it back on" way of recreating the heap.[ >...

...fault/v4/nts/1283/graph?test.400=3> 3.43% 0.3989 > 0.4126 0.0010 2.41% 0.0010 > MultiSource/Benchmarks/MallocBench/espresso/espresso > <http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/1283/graph?test.408=3> 3.07% 1.6150 > 1.6645 0.0037 2.68% 0.0037 > MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C/TimberWolfMC/timberwolfmc > <http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/1283/graph?test.54=3> 3.05% 3.5468 > 3.6550 0.0020 2.59% 0.0020 > MultiSource/Applications/ClamAV/clamscan > <http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/1283/graph?test.214=3> 2.95% 4.1812 > 4.3044 0.0044 2.22% 0.0044 &gt...

...aph?test.400=3> 3.43% 0.3989 >> 0.4126 0.0010 2.41% 0.0010 >> MultiSource/Benchmarks/MallocBench/espresso/espresso >> <http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/1283/graph?test.408=3> 3.07% 1.6150 >> 1.6645 0.0037 2.68% 0.0037 >> MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C/TimberWolfMC/timberwolfmc >> <http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/1283/graph?test.54=3> 3.05% 3.5468 >> 3.6550 0.0020 2.59% 0.0020 >> MultiSource/Applications/ClamAV/clamscan >> <http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/1283/graph?test.214=3> 2.95% 4.1812 >> 4.3044 0.0...

...lications. > > > > > > It's 1.7% overall. > > > > That seems somewhat steep. Can you see how much of the scheduling > > slow down there is? > > I got some times from the nightly report, so this is overall compile time. > > The worst slowdown is on timberwolfmc "llc compile" which has a 5% > slowdown. The JIT slows down 6%. > > Everything else looks to be 1% or less. In some cases the times with > the change are better, probably because this change gets rid of the "pop > everything off and push it back on" way of recre...

....43% 0.3989 >>> 0.4126 0.0010 2.41% 0.0010 >>> MultiSource/Benchmarks/MallocBench/espresso/espresso >>> <http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/1283/graph?test.408=3> 3.07% 1.6150 >>> 1.6645 0.0037 2.68% 0.0037 >>> MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C/TimberWolfMC/timberwolfmc >>> <http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/1283/graph?test.54=3> 3.05% 3.5468 >>> 3.6550 0.0020 2.59% 0.0020 >>> MultiSource/Applications/ClamAV/clamscan >>> <http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/1283/graph?test.214=3> 2.95% 4.1812 &gt...

...urce/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 6.34% > 8.0582 8.5687 0.0539 > MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/automotive-susan/automotive-susan.compile 6.33% > 1.0136 1.0778 0.0021 > External/SPEC/CINT95/134_perl/134_perl.compile 6.31% 6.3453 6.7457 0.0206 > External/SPEC/CFP2006/433_milc/433_milc.compile 6.29...

...>> 0.4126 0.0010 2.41% 0.0010 >>>> MultiSource/Benchmarks/MallocBench/espresso/espresso >>>> <http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/1283/graph?test.408=3> 3.07% 1.6150 >>>> 1.6645 0.0037 2.68% 0.0037 >>>> MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C/TimberWolfMC/timberwolfmc >>>> <http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/1283/graph?test.54=3> 3.05% 3.5468 >>>> 3.6550 0.0020 2.59% 0.0020 >>>> MultiSource/Applications/ClamAV/clamscan >>>> <http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/1283/graph?test.214=3>...

...dobe-C++/Output/simple_types_loop_invariant -2.5% MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C/loader/Output/loader -2.4% MultiSource/Benchmarks/sim/Output/sim -2.4% External/SPEC/CFP2006/433.milc/Output/433.milc -2.4% External/SPEC/CINT95/124.m88ksim/Output/124.m88ksim -2.4% MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C/TimberWolfMC/Output/timberwolfmc -2.4% MultiSource/Applications/treecc/Output/treecc -2.3% MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/consumer-jpeg/Output/consumer-jpeg -2.2% External/SPEC/CFP2006/450.soplex/Output/450.soplex -2.2% External/SPEC/CINT2000/186.crafty/Output/186.crafty -2.2% SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/O...

..._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 6.34% >> 8.0582 8.5687 0.0539 >> MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/automotive-susan/automotive-susan.compile 6.33% >> 1.0136 1.0778 0.0021 >> External/SPEC/CINT95/134_perl/134_perl.compile 6.31% 6.3453 6.7457 0.0206 >> External/SPEC/CFP2006/433_milc/4...

On Jan 2, 2008, at 12:44 PM, David Greene wrote: > On Saturday 22 December 2007 02:33, Evan Cheng wrote: > >>> After some very simple testing, I see slowdowns of around 1.7%. I >>> assume >>> this is ok, but want to check. >> >> Can you clarify? Is this 1.7% slowdown of scheduling time or overall >> codegen time? If it's the later, then it

On Saturday 22 December 2007 02:33, Evan Cheng wrote: > > After some very simple testing, I see slowdowns of around 1.7%. I > > assume > > this is ok, but want to check. > > Can you clarify? Is this 1.7% slowdown of scheduling time or overall > codegen time? If it's the later, then it seems a bit too much. Also, > please test it with all the

...e/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C/compiler/compiler | * | * | MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C/cdecl/cdecl | * | * | MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C/bison/mybison | * | * | MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C/TimberWolfMC/timberwolfmc | * | * | MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C/fixoutput/fixoutput | * | * | MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C/archie-client/archie | * | * | MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C/agrep/agrep...

...* 0.05 | - - n/a n/a MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C++/vcirc/vcirc | 0.0170 1916 0.0065 * 0.0059 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 * 0.01 | - - n/a n/a MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C/TimberWolfMC/timberwolfmc | 3.1184 770364 4.3001 * 0.6510 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 * 0.70 | - - n/a n/a MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C/agrep/agrep | 0.7183 138476 0.7390 * 0.2720 |...

...* 0.07 | - - n/a n/a MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C++/vcirc/vcirc | 0.0280 1920 0.0080 * 0.0040 | 0.00 0.01 0.00 * 0.02 | - - n/a n/a MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C/TimberWolfMC/timberwolfmc | 4.3802 764024 6.0723 * 0.6120 | 0.01 0.00 0.00 * 0.67 | - - n/a n/a MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C/agrep/agrep | 0.7720 133056 0.9720 * 0.3520 |...

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

...* 0.05 | - - n/a n/a MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C++/vcirc/vcirc | 0.0160 1932 0.0030 * 0.0092 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 * 0.01 | - - n/a n/a MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C/TimberWolfMC/timberwolfmc | 2.6410 764028 3.8733 * 0.3957 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 * 0.44 | - - n/a n/a MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C/agrep/agrep | * * * * * |...

After puzzling about the size of the executables and the build times, I discovered (thanks Chris!) that I had compiled everything without debug symbols in the automake version. So, here's some revision from the first version of this email. The build times didn't change much (I guess I/O is cheap on my machine). The new "Build With Automake" times are 20m28.672s (elapsed),

...* 0.02 | - - n/a n/a MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C++/vcirc/vcirc | 0.0068 2164 0.0032 * 0.0031 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 * 0.01 | - - n/a n/a MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C/TimberWolfMC/timberwolfmc | 1.3468 795448 2.0855 * 0.4500 | 0.00 0.00 0.00 * 0.48 | - - n/a n/a MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C/agrep/agrep | 0.2852 147816 0.3477 * 0.1382 |...

...06 | -       -       n/a          n/a > MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C++/vcirc/vcirc                          | > 0.0100 1768     0.0000      *                0.0000      |    0.01    0.00 >  0.01 *           0.02 | -       -       n/a          n/a > MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C/TimberWolfMC/timberwolfmc              | > 1.7300 563480   3.2999      *                0.5900      |    0.01    0.00 >  0.00 *           0.63 | -       -       n/a          n/a > MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C/agrep/agrep                            | > 0.3700 92964    0.5300      *              ...

Hi Tanya, > 1) Compile llvm from source and untar the llvm-test in the projects > directory (name it llvm-test or test-suite). Choose to use a > pre-compiled llvm-gcc or re-compile it yourself. I compiled llvm and llvm-gcc with separate objects directories. Platform is x86_64-linux-gnu. > 2) Run make check, report any failures (FAIL or unexpected pass). Note > that you need to