similar to: Current PGO status

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 2000 matches similar to: "Current PGO status"

2018 Feb 06
2
Current PGO status
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 secĀ  clang++ -O3 and -fprofile-instr-use: 3.160 sec clang++ -O3 and -fprofile-use: 3.180 sec
2018 Feb 07
2
Current PGO status
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
2018 Feb 05
0
Current PGO status
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 >
2018 Feb 06
0
Current PGO status
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
2018 Feb 07
0
Current PGO status
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
2018 Feb 26
1
Current PGO status
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
2018 Jul 12
2
debug_rnglists status
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
2016 May 07
2
About Clang llvm PGO
Thanks for testing out LLVM PGO and evaluated the performance. We are currently still more focused on infrastructure improvement which is the foundation for performance improvement. We are making great progress in this direction, but there are still some key missing pieces such as profile data in inliner etc. We are working on that. Once those are done, more focus will be on making more passes
2018 Jul 12
2
debug_rnglists status
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
2018 Jan 29
2
Using PGO and -O3
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 |
2018 Jan 31
1
Using PGO and -O3
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:
2018 Jan 29
0
Using PGO and -O3
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
2018 Jan 17
0
Adding DWARF5 accelerator table support to llvm
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
2017 Aug 20
3
Buildmaster restart 08.20.2017
Hello everyone, LLVM buildmasters (both main and staging) will be restarted in 2 hours (~3:00 AM PDT). -- Best Regards, Victor Leschuk | Software Engineer |Access Softek
2018 Jan 17
6
Adding DWARF5 accelerator table support to llvm
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
2016 Sep 30
2
DebugInfo: purpose of align field
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
2016 Oct 03
2
DebugInfo: purpose of align field
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 2:24 PM Adrian Prantl via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Sep 30, 2016, at 4:05 PM, Victor Leschuk <vleschuk at accesssoftek.com> > wrote: > > > > Hello Adrian, sorry for the delay with the response. Somehow I missed > your message.. > > > > On 09/13/2016 12:43 AM, Adrian Prantl wrote: >
2016 Mar 09
3
PGO question
Hi, I have a question regarding PGO. I collected profile data with the instrumentation build (-fprofile-instr-generate) and provided for PGO optimization in the second build (with -fprofile-instr-use=xxx.profdata). This works fine. Then I tried to provide the profile data to opt using the option -pgo-instr-use, but this causes an error with the message: "Not an IR level instrumentation
2014 May 12
3
[LLVMdev] Questions about LLVM PGO and autoFDO
Hi, all Recently I'm trying to use LLVM PGO and autoFDO. However I have some problems in the process. LLVM source code is updated on April 9th. Operating system is SUSE x86_64 1. Problems in instrumentation based PGO: clang -O2 -fprofile-instr-generate test.c -o a.out ./a.out (then default.profraw is generated) clang -O2 -fprofile-instr-use=default.profraw test.c -o
2018 Apr 26
3
[lld] - LLD (ELF) code covered by test cases.
Hello guys, Today I tried to find the amount of LLD(elf) code covered by our test cases. So my aim was to run the LLD tests we have (run check-lld task) and find out which code was executed/covered and which was not. I used the approach from the next article to do that: