similar to: [LLVMdev] Status of the 2.3 release - volunteers needed.

On Jun 2, 2008, at 11:11 PM, Tanya Lattner wrote: > Many of you are probably wondering about the status of the 2.3 > release. Unfortunately, this release has been very difficult and the > list of regressions very high. The list has finally dwindled down to > the following regressions: > ... > Darwin/ppc: > SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/fftbench [ CBE ] For my

Tanya Lattner wrote: > Many of you are probably wondering about the status of the 2.3 > release. Unfortunately, this release has been very difficult and the > list of regressions very high. The list has finally dwindled down to > the following regressions: > > Linux/x86: > SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/fftbench [ JIT Codegen, JIT] Increasing ulimit to 230 Mb (from

On Jun 2, 2008, at 11:11 PM, Tanya Lattner wrote: > Darwin/ppc: > SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/fftbench [ CBE ] > From what I can see comparing 2.3 with TOT, the "cexp" function is declared like this in 2.3: declare i128 @cexp({double, double}* byval) nounwind It used to be this: declare void @cexp({double, double}* noalias sret, {double, double}* byval)

Hi all, I've started looking at the GlobalMerge pass, enabled by default on ARM and AArch64. I think we should reconsider that, at least for AArch64. As is, the pass just merges all globals together, in groups of 4KB (AArch64, 128B on ARM). At the time it was enabled, the general thinking was "it's almost free, it doesn't affect performance much, we might as well use it".

I created the 1.9 release branch last night. As a reminder, please do not check in any code changes to the release branch. Please send me email if you have changes that need to be merged into the release branch. To check out the release branch: cvs -d <CVS Repository> co -r release_19 llvm cvs -d <CVS Repository> co -r release_19 llvm-test cvs -d <CVS Repository> co -r

Hi Tanya, I've been checking the state of the various llvm-test failures on X86/Linux with GCC 3.4.6 and llvm-gcc4. I haven't finished this, but I thought the following might be useful for other people that are testing the release on Linux. Each group of failing tests below is followed by a comment about why its failing. llc /MultiSource/Applications/oggenc/oggenc jit

This nightly tester is now using an llvm-g++ that produces the new ODR linkage types. This means that many more functions are being considered by the inter-procedural optimization passes (for example, "linkonce" functions defined in a header). The result seems to be pretty huge swings (both good and bad) in the C++ tests in the testsuite, see below. Note that this tester is often

Ok, I have good news! Thanks for the help! On Jun 2, 2008, at 11:11 PM, Tanya Lattner wrote: > Many of you are probably wondering about the status of the 2.3 > release. Unfortunately, this release has been very difficult and > the list of regressions very high. The list has finally dwindled > down to the following regressions: > > Linux/x86: >

LLVMers, The LLVM 1.9 Prerelease is available for testing: http://llvm.org/prereleases/1.9/ If anyone can spare some time, please download the appropriate tarballs for your platform and test the release (at least with make check). I'd also appreciate any documentation reviews. Please note that llvm-gcc3 on x86 may not have a clean dejagnu run. You should see one XPASS for

Hi Tanya, Here's my second attempt on Fedora Core 5. The changes this time are: 1. Using GCC 4.0.3 as the compiler 2. Building everything from source (no pre-built binaries used) BUILD LLVM WITH GCC 4.0.3 * No issues, just the usual warnings. BUILD LLVM-GCC WITH GCC 4.0.3 * No issues RUN LLVM-TEST WITH GCC 4.0.3 * The following failures were encountered. Some of them are

Tanya, Here's the results for GNU/Linux, 2.6.18-1.2200.fc5smp (Fedora Core 5) HIGH LEVEL COMMENTS * The llvm-1.9.tar.gz file unpacks to a dir named "llvm". Shouldn't that be llvm-1.9? * LLVM was built in Release mode in all cases * I don't think this is ready for release. In particular the llvm-gcc4 binary seg faults on FC 5 for most of llvm-test programs. *

LLVMers, The 2.2 prerelease is now available for testing: http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.2/ If anyone can help test this release, I ask that you do the following: 1) Build llvm and llvm-gcc (or use a binary). You may build release (default) or debug. You may pick llvm-gcc-4.0, llvm-gcc-4.2, or both. 2) Run 'make check'. 3) In llvm-test, run 'make TEST=nightly report'. 4) When

Hi, Below you can see the updated benchmark results for the new SLP-vectorizer. As you can see, there is a small number of compile time regressions, a single major runtime *regression, and many performance gains. There is a tiny increase in code size: 30k for the whole test-suite. Based on the numbers below I would like to enable the SLP-vectorizer by default for -O3. Please let me know if you

Hi Bob, are these performance regressions real? They look pretty serious. Ciao, Duncan. On 10/12/11 09:40, llvm-testresults at cs.uiuc.edu wrote: > > bwilson__llvm-gcc_PROD__i386 nightly tester results > > URL http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/simple/nts/332/ > Nickname bwilson__llvm-gcc_PROD__i386:4 > Name curlew.apple.com > > Run ID Order Start Time End Time >

Hello; I was able to build and install llvm(3.0) under Ubuntu 11.10 (using the ./configure script found under llvm source, and then make and make install). While configuring, I gave --prefix as a directory where I would like llvm to be installed. I did not give --with-llvmgccdir and the --enable-optimized argument to configure. Because 3.0 doesn't come with llvmgcc source/binaries and I

Hi Tanya, > 1) Compile llvm from source and untar the llvm-test in the projects > directory (name it llvm-test or test-suite). Choose to use a > pre-compiled llvm-gcc or re-compile it yourself. I compiled llvm and llvm-gcc with separate objects directories. Platform is x86_64-linux-gnu. > 2) Run make check, report any failures (FAIL or unexpected pass). Note > that you need to

LLVMers, The 2.1 pre-release (version 1) is available for testing: http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.1/version1/ I'm looking for members of the LLVM community to test the 2.1 release. There are 2 ways you can help: 1) Download llvm-2.1, llvm-test-2.1, and the appropriate llvm-gcc4.0 binary. Run "make check" and the full llvm-test suite (make TEST=nightly report). 2) Download

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

Most of libc++ doesn't have explicit template instantiations, which leads to a pretty significant build time and code size cost when using libc++, since a large number of common templates will be emitted by the compiler and coalesced by the linker. Notably, in include/__config, we have: #ifndef _LIBCPP_EXTERN_TEMPLATE #define _LIBCPP_EXTERN_TEMPLATE(...) #endif whereas before

Yes, they are real. I re-ran the two tests with the biggest execution time regressions, and the results were completely reproducible. On Oct 12, 2011, at 1:24 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Bob, are these performance regressions real? They look pretty serious. > > Ciao, Duncan. > > On 10/12/11 09:40, llvm-testresults at cs.uiuc.edu wrote: >> >>