similar to: [LLVMdev] Bytecode Changes

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, Tanu Sharma wrote: > I am compiling SPEC 2000 benchmarks with llvm .Got stuck with > calculating "execution time" of all the .bc and native files. > > The log for nightly test itself gives execution times but I am passing > the bytecode files to my pass which gives another bytecode file.I have > to calculate execution time of such bytecode and

Hello All, Thanks for the reply.I can generate the reports by compiling Spec through llvm, but that couldn't resolve my problem. I m trying to determine execution time for the bytecode and native files , which are obtained as a result of running my pass over the original bytecode .I am running these experiments on spec benchmark. In SPEC we have command line tools such as runspec where

When I try to compile the olden bc's off the webpage I am getting undefined symbols. My compile script works as follows: #!/bin/sh echo "Generating assembly file." llc -f $1.bc echo "Assembling s file." /opt/SUNWspro/bin/cc -xarch=v9 -lm $1.s -o $1 echo "Removing s file." rm $1.s and here is an example of the symbol issues: Undefined first referenced symbol

On Sun, 8 Dec 2002, Chris Lattner wrote: > Olden itself doesn't need it. _Compiling_ Olden requires the assembler to > turn llvm .s files into llvm .o files. Why not just use the bytecode > files that Misha posted? Right now I can't even get the LLVM assembly file to produce from Olden. The bytecodes that Misha posted are some ancient Olden version that doesn't work

But there already was an "install", and it did far more than install the bytecode files. That changed too? On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 23:28:27 -0800 Reid Spencer <reid at x10sys.com> wrote: > Yeah, its just "install" now. > > I'll fix the documentation. > > Reid. > > On Wed, 2004-11-10 at 23:19, Jeff Cohen wrote: > > My rebuild from scratch

The entire makefile system was rewritten a couple of weeks ago. This is a good thing, your compiles now go twice as fast. Resistance is futile, just adapt :) The install target installed the bytecode libs into CFEINSTALL as before and also installs the native libraries to your prefix/lib directory. This is intentional. Reid On Wed, 2004-11-10 at 23:32, Jeff Cohen wrote: > But there already

The default prefix is /usr/local but I would recommend that when you configure LLVm you do so with: configure --prefix=/me/llvm/install/dir ... so that installation occurs in a place you have write access. If you feel strongly about restoring the install-bytecode target, feel free to file a bug. Reid. On Thu, 2004-11-11 at 09:12, Jeff Cohen wrote: > Wow... it is nearly twice as fast. But

Wow... it is nearly twice as fast. But it tried to install stuff in /usr/local (and as I wasn't root...) and it didn't do that before. As I don't care about profiling or tracing, I didn't bother to su and do it again. On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 23:45:35 -0800 Reid Spencer <reid at x10sys.com> wrote: > The entire makefile system was rewritten a couple of weeks ago. This is

> What exactly does Olden require from 'as'. I can't build the entire 'as' > because there's no more disk space left. Olden itself doesn't need it. _Compiling_ Olden requires the assembler to turn llvm .s files into llvm .o files. Why not just use the bytecode files that Misha posted? -Chris -- http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/ http://www.nondot.org/~sabre/Projects/

Jeff, I tried the Benchmarks/Olden/power, Benchmarks/OptimizerEval, and Benchmarks/Ptrdist/ks tests. They all worked with your patches. I suggest you update your tree :) The changes also survived all the Feature and Regression tests on Linux. So, your changes are committed. Thanks for the patches! Reid. On Sun, 2004-08-29 at 16:01, Jeff Cohen wrote: > Fair enough... The following tests

does anyone knows how to get the Olden BM bytecode files? We're low on disk space and I don't want to build the whole test branch (even if i can, which I doubt, it failed last time i tried).

This kind of thing is one of the many reasons we broke llvm-test out to a separate project. It has multiple purposes. Its a correctness test on LLVM, its what we base our compiler benchmarks on, and its also where a lot of the research gets done. You've been bitten by the latt(n)er. :) At some point I'd like to see us make some distinctions so that there is a correctness test suite whose

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > This kind of thing is one of the many reasons we broke llvm-test out to > a separate project. It has multiple purposes. Its a correctness test on > LLVM, its what we base our compiler benchmarks on, and its also where a > lot of the research gets done. You've been bitten by the latt(n)er. :) > > At some point I'd like to see us

No, I don't feel strongly about it... it's just annoying to have things change on me that break habits :) On the other hand, I do feel strongly about the tests in llvm-test that are now failing on me because they explicitly include alloca.h, a file that does not exist on FreeBSD. I can supply a patch to take out the include, of course, but the problem then becomes that the tests will

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 17:14:18 -0700 Reid Spencer <reid at x10sys.com> wrote: > Jeff, > > I tried the Benchmarks/Olden/power, Benchmarks/OptimizerEval, and > Benchmarks/Ptrdist/ks tests. They all worked with your patches. I > suggest you update your tree :) I was using the 1.3 release, though I did pull the current code from CVS to verify no other changes were made to those

Perhaps you noticed that LLVM gained a new optimizing register allocator yesterday (r130568). Linear scan is going away, and RAGreedy is the new default for optimizing builds. Hopefully, you noticed because your binaries were suddenly 2% smaller and 10% faster*. Some noticed because LLVM started crashing or miscompiling their code. Greedy replaces a fairly big chunk of the code generator, so

What exactly does Olden require from 'as'. I can't build the entire 'as' because there's no more disk space left. Wojciech

The following should work: % cd llvm/test/Programs/MultiSource % gmake DISABLE_CBE=1 DISABLE_LLC=1 --Vikram http://www.cs.uiuc.edu/~vadve > -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-admin at cs.uiuc.edu > [mailto:llvmdev-admin at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Juan Nicolas Ruiz > Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2002 2:20 PM > To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: [LLVMdev] Olden BM

On Sun, 8 Dec 2002, Juan Nicolas Ruiz wrote: > does anyone knows how to get the Olden BM bytecode files? http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/LLVMPrograms/Olden/ -- Misha Brukman :: uiuc.edu/~brukman

My rebuild from scratch has hit this snag. The instructions still call for running "gmake -C runtime install-bytecode", but this target no longer exists.