similar to: LTO query

I've only measured performance on x86. There are some old results for SPEC cpu2006 in the blog post here: http://blog.llvm.org/2016/06/thinlto-scalable-and-incremental-lto.html The benefit is benchmark dependent, e.g. small benchmarks often don't improve much as they don't require whole program optimizations. We've improved the ThinLTO optimizations since then, but I don't

Hi, Thanks for the info, If i only want to run performance test on benchmarks for LTO and Thin LTO enabled target, Can u suggest ways to do it ? I want to do it at my end. Thanks, Siddharth On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > I've only measured performance on x86. There are some old results for SPEC > cpu2006 in the blog post here:

Yes running LLVM performance test suite with LTO and Thin LTO enabled. Thanks, Siddharth On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 7:32 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > I'm not completely sure what you are asking. Are you looking for > performance benchmarks to use for LTO and ThinLTO testing? Or are you > asking how to build/run with LTO and ThinLTO? Are you asking how to

I'm not completely sure what you are asking. Are you looking for performance benchmarks to use for LTO and ThinLTO testing? Or are you asking how to build/run with LTO and ThinLTO? Are you asking how to run LLVM's performance test-suite with LTO and ThinLTO? Teresa On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 5:21 AM Siddharth Shankar Swain < h2015096 at pilani.bits-pilani.ac.in> wrote: > Hi, >

Hopefully someone else on the dev list who has experience with LNT and the LLVM test-suite will chime in. I've never run it myself. Adding Mehdi since he ran it with LTO/ThinLTO. I found some documentation for the test-suite: https://llvm.org/docs/TestingGuide.html#test-suite-overview http://llvm.org/docs/lnt/quickstart.html http://llvm.org/docs/lnt/tests.html#llvm-cmake-test-suite But I

yeah so when LTO runs, in the linker, it uses the target to produce object code. In the sense of code generation for target arch. Thanks, Siddharth On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 11:03 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > Can you be more specific? LTO/ThinLTO are target independent. You just > need to be using a linker that supports *LTO (gold, lld, ld64, eg). > Teresa

Hi, Can anyone guide on how to enable LTO and Thin LTO for a new backend target ? Thanks, Siddharth -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180129/2ae8f38d/attachment.html>

Can you be more specific? LTO/ThinLTO are target independent. You just need to be using a linker that supports *LTO (gold, lld, ld64, eg). Teresa On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 9:04 PM, Siddharth Shankar Swain via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi, > Can anyone guide on how to enable LTO and Thin LTO for a new backend > target ? > Thanks, > Siddharth > >

No worries, thanks for the update. Teresa On Mon, Sep 26, 2016, 7:16 AM Carsten Mattner <carstenmattner at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> > wrote: > > > > ThinLTO needs to create as many temporary files as there are input > > modules to the link. From your 'ls' below, it doesn't look

Thanks Easwaran. This is what we've observed as well, where the old PM inliner was only looking hot/cold callee information, which have signficantly smaller boosts/penalties compared to callsite information. Teresa, do you know if there is some documentation/video/presentation on how PGO information is represented in LLVM and what information is passed via the IR? I'm finding some

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Teresa Johnson via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Graham Yiu <gyiu at ca.ibm.com> wrote: > >> Hi Teresa, >> >> Actually, enabling the new pass manager manually seems to have solved >> this issue, so this problem is only valid for the old pass manager. >> >

Hi Teresa, Actually, enabling the new pass manager manually seems to have solved this issue, so this problem is only valid for the old pass manager. Thanks, Graham Yiu LLVM Compiler Development IBM Toronto Software Lab Office: (905) 413-4077 C2-707/8200/Markham Email: gyiu at ca.ibm.com From: Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> To: Graham Yiu <gyiu at ca.ibm.com> Cc:

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Carsten Mattner <carstenmattner at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> > wrote: > > No worries, thanks for the update. Teresa > > 2048 wasn't enough. Bumped to 4096. Only 1300 ninja targets left. > > Once I've been successful with this, I might try building a

Hello, My team and I noticed that callsite hotness information is not preserved from compile to link step with LTO/thinLTO enabled. As a result, the link step inlining pass remains conservative when inlining callsites known to be hot (ie. without the 'HotCallSiteThreshold' which is set at 3000 by default). There are likely many cross-module inlining opportunities lost this way, and

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > >> On 2015-Jun-03, at 09:56, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 1:18 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at

On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Piotr Padlewski > <piotr.padlewski at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > 2016-09-02 15:04 GMT-07:00 Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com>: > >> > >> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Piotr Padlewski > >>

Hi, I am working right now on importing based on PGO/FDO data. There is one issue that I found - when we calculate the list of imports, we can't get the ProfileSummaryInfo, which is the best and I think only valid way of checking if callsite/callee is hot (isHotCount()). There are 2 solutions that I come up with Teresa and Easwaran: 1. Add PGO data to summary 2. Replace

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 1:18 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> > wrote: >> >> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 12:41 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 9:09 PM, Teresa Johnson

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> > wrote: > >> Hi David, >> >> We've been considering changing the naming scheme for promoted local >> functions in ThinLTO. Currently we just prepend the file name, but that >>

On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google.com> wrote: > On 12/12/14 15:56, Adve, Vikram Sadanand wrote: >> >> I've been asked how LTO in LLVM compares to equivalent capabilities >> in GCC. How do the two compare in terms of scalability? And >> robustness for large applications? > > > Neither GCC nor LLVM can handle our