similar to: Buildmaster restart 08.20.2017

David, could you please clarify on which code did you gain 10% improvement? I have run numerous tests with and w/o this option and it looks like it has no effect on performance (I am talking of the old 2016 sample to be concrete). Maybe we could investigate it together? Just tell me where to start? On 02/07/2018 02:11 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote: > Victor, thanks for the experiment. > >

Victor, please file a bug tracking the issue. We can put relevant information there including test cases used in the experiment etc. thanks, David On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 2:15 PM, Victor Leschuk <vleschuk at accesssoftek.com> wrote: > David, could you please clarify on which code did you gain 10% > improvement? I have run numerous tests with and w/o this option and it > looks

Maybe we should update the documentation to state this directly? Currently its a little bit confusing. On 01/29/2018 05:51 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote: > It means using PGO with -O2 and above (including -O3). > > David > > On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 6:48 PM, Victor Leschuk via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > >

Hello David, thanks for detailed response! Do you have any tests that you use to measure the PGO effectiveness? I have tested clang version 6.0 with the same sample that Jie Chen used in 2016 and actually both frontend-based PGO and IR-based make code run slower, see the average time: clang++ -O3: 3.15 sec  clang++ -O3 and -fprofile-instr-use: 3.160 sec clang++ -O3 and -fprofile-use: 3.180 sec

Victor, thanks for the experiment. My suspicion is it is due to the remaining issues with block layout -- especially with loop rotation (with PGO). Another problem is that tail dup is not happening after loop rotation which can limit the effectiveness of loop rotation. I tried the internal option -mllvm -force-precise-rotation-cost and there is about 10% speedup with -fprofile-use. This option

Hello all, clang-related PGO documentation recommends using PGO with -O2 (for example: https://clang.llvm.org/docs/UsersManual.html#profile-guided-optimization). The question is: is there any reason why exactly -O2 is used in examples? Are there any factors which can cause problems when using PGO with -O3? Thanks in advance for your advice! -- Best Regards, Victor Leschuk | Software Engineer

It means using PGO with -O2 and above (including -O3). David On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 6:48 PM, Victor Leschuk via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hello all, > > clang-related PGO documentation recommends using PGO with -O2 (for > example: > https://clang.llvm.org/docs/UsersManual.html#profile-guided-optimization). > The question is: is there any reason why

On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 9:59 PM, Victor Leschuk <vleschuk at accesssoftek.com> wrote: > Hello David! > > I have recently started acquaintance with PGO in LLVM/clang and found > your e-mail thread: > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-May/099395.html . Here you > posted a nice list of optimizations that use profiling and of those > which could be using but

Hi Victor, The work Wolfgang is doing should get us to the "minimum syntactically correct DWARF v5" stage, which we really wanted to have for LLVM 7.0. That is, once we have .debug_rnglists and .debug_loclists done, you can ask for DWARF 5 and get something that conforms to the spec. However, it won't conform if you ask for type units (I'm working on that) or split DWARF. If

Hello David! I have recently started acquaintance with PGO in LLVM/clang and found your e-mail thread: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-May/099395.html . Here you posted a nice list of optimizations that use profiling and of those which could be using but don't. However that thread is about 2 years old. Could you please kindly let me know if there were any significant changes in

Hello Wolfgang and team, I see that you are working on support of .debug_rnglists, I am interested in the feature too, could you please point me out what else left to be done so that I could help you? -- Best Regards, Victor Leschuk | Software Engineer | Access Softek

Hello David and all involved =) On 02/05/2018 09:38 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote: > ThinLTO also works well with PGO. Could you please let me know if there are any problems which prevent using PGO with FullLTO? Thanks in advance! -- Best Regards, Victor Leschuk | Software Engineer | Access Softek

Hello, I hope I will have time to help you with that. I discussed dwarfv5 .debug_names implementation with involved party from RH. Anyway even if can't help much could you keep me in the loop please? On 01/17/2018 07:13 PM, Pavel Labath via llvm-dev wrote: > Hello all, > > In <https://reviews.llvm.org/D41986#977215> it was brought up that > there are at least two parties

Hi. As per[1], gcc-4.8 is the oldest supported *major* gcc version. But what about minor/patch versions? When https://reviews.llvm.org/D43779 was initially committed, a few[2][3] buildbots failed. As i have now looked into the issue: * but it is *REPRODUCIBLE* with gcc-4.8.4 and gcc-4.9.2 from debian oldstable (Jessie). * it is *NOT* reproducible with gcc-4.8.5 and gcc-4.9.3 from ubuntu 16.04,

Hey all, It seems that the main buildmaster here is working fine http://lab.llvm.org:8011/ However, I have a 'connection refused' error whilst connecting to the staging buildmaster http://lab.llvm.org:8014/ Are you aware of this Victor and Galina? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Should "lit :: shtest-format.py" (from check-lit) be marked unsupported on PS4? It seems flakey there. This evening, it failed on my commit, r337514, and I'm fairly confident it wasn't my commit's fault. Then it recovered on the next commit. http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/llvm-clang-lld-x86_64-scei-ps4-ubuntu-fast/builds/33502

Hello everyone, I'm going to restart the LLVM buildmaster in about an hour or so, when the majority of the builders will be idle. Few slow builders will loose r143858 and r143861, and you will need to check the results later when new changes will be built. Sorry for this. Thanks, Galina

Hello all, In <https://reviews.llvm.org/D41986#977215> it was brought up that there are at least two parties interested in having DWARF5 accelerator tables implemented, so I'm writing this email to see if there's anyone else interested in this topic, and to try to synchronize our efforts. Our interest for this stems from a desire to make dwarf parsing fast on non-apple targets

FWIW, I've seen it fail on some of my commits too, but I don't remember whether it was on the PS4 bot exclusively or not. Anyway, my understanding is that this test shouldn't inherently have different behaviour on PS4 specifically, but I could be mistaken. I suspect it's something more general to do with the configuration of the bot. James On 20 July 2018 at 03:52, Justin Bogner

Hello Adrian, sorry for the delay with the response. Somehow I missed your message.. On 09/13/2016 12:43 AM, Adrian Prantl wrote: >> On Sep 10, 2016, at 12:50 PM, Victor Leschuk via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> Hello all, >> >> I am currently implementing support for DWARFv5 DW_AT_alignment attr and I got a question about align field in