similar to: [LLVMdev] Compiler Benchmarks

Reid Spencer wrote: > FYI, > > Yesterday's Slashdot had an article about Linux compiler benchmarks from > Coyote Gulch (Scott Ladd). In this update he compares GCC and ICC. You > can read the article here: > http://www.coyotegulch.com/reviews/linux_compilers/ > > Of particular note was his use of SciMark 2.0 which is a NIST developed > benchmark for scientific

On Saturday 31 January 2009 03:42:04 Eli Friedman wrote: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote: > > I just remembered an anomalous result that I stumbled upon whilst > > tweaking the command-line options to llvm-gcc. Specifically, the -msse3 > > flag > > The -msse3 flag? Does the -msse2 flag have a similar effect? Yes: $

The release of a new code generator in Mono 2.2 prompted me to benchmark the performance of various VMs using the SciMark2 benchmark on an 8x 2.1GHz 64-bit Opteron and I have published the results here: http://flyingfrogblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/mono-22.html The LLVM results were generated using llvm-gcc 4.2.1 on the C version of SciMark2 with the following command-line options: llvm-gcc

I just remembered an anomalous result that I stumbled upon whilst tweaking the command-line options to llvm-gcc. Specifically, the -msse3 flag does a great job improving the performance of floating point intensive code on the SciMark2 benchmark but it also degrades the performance of the int-intensive Monte Carlo part of the test: $ llvm-gcc -Wall -lm -O3 *.c -o scimark2 $ ./scimark2 Using

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote: > > I just remembered an anomalous result that I stumbled upon whilst tweaking the > command-line options to llvm-gcc. Specifically, the -msse3 flag The -msse3 flag? Does the -msse2 flag have a similar effect? -Eli

----- Original Message ----- From: "Jon Harrop" <jon at ffconsultancy.com> To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2009 6:56 AM Subject: [LLVMdev] Performance vs other VMs > > The release of a new code generator in Mono 2.2 prompted me to benchmark > the > performance of various VMs using the SciMark2

I'm cross-posting the message below (from GCC list) because I believe it would (at some point) be very beneficial to build an evolutionary optimization pass into LLVM. The idea would be to discover the perfect set of optimizations for a given program by trying them all and analyzing the execution times of each. This would be somewhat like profile driven optimization except the profile is

This is not a quite fair comparison. Other virtual machines must be doing garbage collection, while LLVM, as it is using C code, it is taking advantage of memory allocation by hand. On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote: > > The release of a new code generator in Mono 2.2 prompted me to benchmark the > performance of various VMs using the

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 12:04:47PM -0500, Jack Howarth wrote: >> My concern is that, without strict enforcement of the triaging >> serious P1-type bugs, the major llvm.org releases will devolve into a >> continual exchange of one set of major regressions for another set.

This is a hot topic in the compiler research community, but the focus there is on (a) choosing the right optimization sequences internally and transparently, rather than through combinations of options, (b) performance prediction techniques so you don't actually have to run gazillion different choices, and perhaps can even avoid the problem of choosing representative inputs, as you talked

Using the SciMark 2.0 code from http://math.nist.gov/scimark2/scimark2_1c.zip compiled with the same... make CFLAGS="-O3 -march=native" I am able to reproduce the 22% performance regression in the run time of the Sparse matmult benchmark. For 10 runs of the scimark2 benechmark, I get 998.439+/-0.4828 with the release llvm clang 3.5.1 compiler and 1217.363+/-1.1004 for the current

On Feb 2, 2009, at 3:00 PM, Jon Harrop wrote: > On Monday 02 February 2009 20:37:47 you wrote: >> On Feb 2, 2009, at 12:39 PM, Jon Harrop wrote: >>> On Monday 02 February 2009 06:10:26 Chris Lattner wrote: >>>> I'm seeing exactly identical .s files with -msse2 and -msse3 on the >>>> scimark version I have. Can you please send the output of:

Scott Robert Ladd has realized an analysis of GNU C and C++ optimizations, using a genetic algorithm to discover the most effective optimization flags for different algorithms. Check it out: http://www.coyotegulch.com/acovea/index.html AMD Optimized Windows XviD codec: http://net314.myphone.gr/xvid_amd.html Happy coding ! <p>>>Forward Agency In progress we (always) trust.

Hi Peter, > Why not do this too? I've applied this - thanks for the patch! Ciao, Duncan.

Duncan, Do a quick check here on x86_64-apple-darwin10 with svn llvm and svn dragon-egg against release gcc 4.5.0, the results from the himenoBMTxpa benchmark compiled at -O3 look pretty good. With stock gcc-4.5.0, we get... Grid-size = M mimax = 128 mjmax = 128 mkmax = 256 imax = 127 jmax = 127 kmax =255 Start rehearsal measurement process. Measure the performance in 3 times. MFLOPS:

I finally got around to testing this on a Bloomfield processor (Early 2009 MacPro 2x2.66 GHz dual-quad core) and the regressions from http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=22589 are even more severe. For 10 runs of scimark2_1c built with "-O3 -march=native"... llvm 3.5.1 1204.16+/-2.66 Mflops 3.6 branch 866.49+/-1.26 Mflops Do you seriously want to ship with a 39% performance

Hi all, We had some internal discussions about flipping the default for O0 and we concluded that we wanted to postpone it. *** Why Is That? *** We don’t want to send the wrong message that GlobalISel’s design is set in stone and ready for broader adoption. In particular, 1. The APIs are still evolving and can still possibly change significantly 2. The TableGen backend to reuse the existing SD

Has anyone tried acovea on llvm, acovea is a fairly popular software package that uses GAs(Genetic Algorithms) to tune compiler command-line settings to optimize the performance for a given application. It works with gcc for sure.

Im trying to script an Rsync batch job to run multiple times a day to back up to Windows 2000 Servers. The Synch works great, but at the end of the job the command never exits. It just sits there is some weird hanging state. Does anyone have any ideas? Thank you.

They claim to max out at 1,800 MFLOPs And have a clock speed of up to 300 mhz. Jean-Marc Valin wrote: >Tell me how fast these chips are, I'll tell you if there's a chance... > > Jean-Marc > >Le jeu 18/12/2003 à 16:52, David Siebert a écrit : > > >>Anyone have any idea if the any of the Sharc or TigerSHARC DSPs are >>powerful enough to do realtime Speex?