similar to: [LLVMdev] Using the test suite to benchmark patches

On Wed, 21 May 2008, Mike Stump wrote: > On May 21, 2008, at 8:09 AM, Matthijs Kooijman wrote: >> Any thoughts or suggestions on how to do this testing in a >> structured manner? > > I think that if what you're doing is sound, and you get the results > you want, say, on compiling something like gcc with it and others > review the basic idea (hi evan or chris) and

On May 21, 2008, at 8:09 AM, Matthijs Kooijman wrote: > Any thoughts or suggestions on how to do this testing in a > structured manner? I think that if what you're doing is sound, and you get the results you want, say, on compiling something like gcc with it and others review the basic idea (hi evan or chris) and like it, just checking it in and watching the performance numbers

Matthijs, On May 21, 2008, at 1:43 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > We don't have a great way of diffing performance runs, other than the > nightly tester. Devang has an experimental "opt-beta" mode that can > be > used for experimenting with optimization passes, and we have "llc- > beta" > which is great for measuring the impact of codegen changes.

Hi Devang, I've tried the OPTBETA approach, and it now runs with and without my patch succesfully. I've found two problems, however: 1. The output of the nightly report does not include the figures from opt-beta by default. I've modified the TEST.nightly.report script to add two columns (OPT-BETA and LLC/OPT-BETA), but committing this change would mean that most users will be

Hi All, I've finally implemented my proposed changes to the testing documentation. I think I fixed up the naming everywhere, but I did only a single pass over the document, so I might have missed something. Review welcome :-) It is now recommended to put the test suite in "projects/test-suite" instead of "projects/llvm-test". I've also updated the configure script and

Hi, I've been toying around with the testsuite for a bit, and after recompiling llvm-gcc a bunch of times and fixing a nasty bashism bug, I actually got it to run and pass most tests. When running, I noticed a very long runtime on the lemon test. At first I suspected an infinite loop, but it turned out the test simply needed around 1000 seconds to run. Some investigation turned out that the

Great! To really finish this work, the nightly tester script needs to be updated. Its currently full of llvm-test references. Would you be willing to modify this as well? Thanks, Tanya On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, Matthijs Kooijman wrote: > Hi All, > > I've finally implemented my proposed changes to the testing documentation. I > think I fixed up the naming everywhere, but I did only

Hello, Erwin > If you are interested, I think it is best to start with Bullet 2.75. > If it turns out that LLVM requires some modifications (due to current C++ > limitations), > we can modify Bullet and go for an uncoming release such as Bullet 2.76 > (planned around January 2010). I added bullet to LLVM testsuite. Basically I had to flatten source directories since this is a

Hi all, as you might have seen, I just did some restructuring on the testing documentation. Since the changes are only documentation and mostly text movement, I took the liberty of committing without posting a patch first. Was that appropriate?. The incentive for this commit was that I've spent the last week trying to get a grip on the test suite with moderate success. I think this

Hi, I am very interested in using dragonegg as a fortran frontend for the LLVM test suite, as a start to improve fortran support. I believe this should be easy, but when I looked into this I had the impression the nightly tester in the llvm test-suite does not even support dragonegg for the C/C++ part. Is this true or did I miss something? Are there any patches flying around, that would take

Hi all, I'm having some trouble building llvm-gcc as of today, with and without bootstrap. The error I get is: /home/kooijman/src/llvm-gcc/obj/./gcc/xgcc -B/home/kooijman/src/llvm-gcc/obj/./gcc/ -B/home/kooijman/src/llvm-gcc/obj/../install/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ -B/home/kooijman/src/llvm-gcc/obj/../install/i686-pc-linux-gnu/lib/ -isystem

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2621 Bug ID: 2621 Summary: ControlMaster started by scp (non-ssh?) doesn't forward agent Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 7.3p1 Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: Miscellaneous

Hi Tobias, > I am very interested in using dragonegg as a fortran frontend for the LLVM test > suite, as a start to improve fortran support. > > I believe this should be easy, but when I looked into this I had the impression > the nightly tester in the llvm test-suite does not even support dragonegg for > the C/C++ part. Is this true or did I miss something? this is true. >

Hi Christopher, On Sat, 2007-07-28 at 12:58 -0700, Christopher Lamb wrote: > Most of the time I'm working on a non-public LLVM target, but > sometimes I want to contribute fixes or enhancements back to the core > of LLVM or a public target. One thing that I end up having to do each > time this happens is that I've got to run the test-suite with a > vanilla copy of LLVM from

Hi Anton, Thanks a lot for offering help. Bullet uses basic linear algebra with 4-way vectors, quaternion and matrices. Although most of this is plain portable C++ perhaps LLVM can auto-vectorize some of this? There is a little bit of hand optimized x86 SSE code. This is only enabled on 32bit Windows and Mac OSX Intel builds. >> Should I just use the 2.75 release? If you are interested,

Most of the time I'm working on a non-public LLVM target, but sometimes I want to contribute fixes or enhancements back to the core of LLVM or a public target. One thing that I end up having to do each time this happens is that I've got to run the test-suite with a vanilla copy of LLVM from SVN to discover which tests are failing so that I can determine that my changes

Hi All, I've been fiddling around with a DenseMap to store cached copies of some result. In short, I'm doing the following: It = Map.find(Key) if (It != Map.end() && It->second != Unknown) Return It->second; // do_stuff return Map[Key] = Result; However, I this requires two lookups in the hash table, which is not so nice. Currently, there is no way to write this down so

Hi, I was evaluating all transformation passes and noticed a few things. In particular, I found three passes in the documentation that I can't seem to find any code for. Where these removed? Lower GC intrinsics, for GCless code generators (-lowergc) Correlated Expression Elimination (-cee) Lower select instructions to branches (-lowerselect) Additionally, I found the following passes for

Hi John, > If you run into problems, please email llvmdev. I'll periodically check > llvm.org to make sure it's still up. I'm seeing long delays on llvm.org again. Pages are served eventually, but it takes minutes for each requests. Are there any dynamic scripts on the server that can eat a lot of resources? I think the nightly tester result pages would qualify? Perhaps

Hi all, about a month ago, I've started working on my master's thesis. Since I want to focus on just that work, I've stopped my LLVM work for now. It is unclear whether I will continue my work after graduation, but it seems unlikely. I'll still keep track of LLVM from a personal interest (mostly watching the IRC channel), but I won't have the time to track any mailing lists.