similar to: [LLVMdev] -msse3 can degrade performance

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: $

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

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:

This looks like the sort of thing that you should ask the package maintainer (?maintainer). Cheers, Bert Bert Gunter "The trouble with having an open mind is that people keep coming along and sticking things into it." -- Opus (aka Berkeley Breathed in his "Bloom County" comic strip ) On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 11:39 AM, john polo <jpolo at mail.usf.edu> wrote: >

R-users, I can't tell what's causing the following error. The vignette does not make a reference to a "packages" option or parameter. > library(MonteCarlo) Loading required package: abind Loading required package: codetools Loading required package: rlecuyer Loading required package: snow Loading required package: snowfall > infest_kud_fun<-function(x,A,B){ +??

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

Hello, When using write.table I am getting two variables pasted together (not by choice). Has anyone else had this happen? Specifically, I have the following: d _ read.dta(paste('/montecarlo/forecast/off/',F,'.dta',sep='')) write.table(d,file=paste('/montecarlo/forecast/off/csv/',F,'.csv',sep=''), row.names=FALSE, col.names=FALSE,

Hi, I would like to replicate a sort of Montecarlo experiment: I have to generate a random variable N(0,1) with 100 observations but I have to contaminate this values at certain point in order to obtain different vectors with different samples: tab<-function(N,n,E,L){ for(i in 1:100){ X1<-rnorm(N*(1-a),0,1) X2<-rnorm(N*(a),E,L) X_tab<-sample(c(X1,X2),n,replace=T) } return(X_tab)}

I am seeing the same problems using 'llvm-ld' with llvm-gcc at -O4 on x86_64 Fedora 8 linux as on Darwin. Another example of this is building the scimark2_1c benchmark... http://math.nist.gov/scimark2/download_c.html as follows on x86_64 Fedora 8... /home/howarth/llvm-gcc42-work/bin/gcc -O4 -m64 -c FFT.c /home/howarth/llvm-gcc42-work/bin/gcc -O4 -m64 -c kernel.c

Hello, When using write.table I am getting two variables pasted together (not by choice). Has anyone else had this happen? Specifically, I have the following on a RH7.2/R1.4 box: d _ read.dta(paste('/montecarlo/forecast/off/',F,'.dta',sep='')) write.table(d,file=paste('/montecarlo/forecast/off/csv/',F,'.csv',sep=''), row.names=FALSE,

Dear all, I was interested to get an idea on how the computational complexity is affected by different modes, assuming a fixed complexity setting. I saw in the documentation (Table 4 http://www.speex.org/docs/manual/speex-manual/node10.html) that going to higher data bit rate does not always increase the complexity (e.g. 11 kbps require 14 mflops while 15 kbps require 11 mflops). Is this

----- 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

Hello Developers, I am considering using SPEEX on an embedded processor that does not have a floating point unit. Does anybody have a SPEEX performance characterization on a fixed point processor? More specifically, I am interested in knowing how the MFLOPS values from Table 9.2 in the manual translate to fixed-point instructions when SPEEX is compiled with enable-fixed-point option. Any help

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 computing. Its available in both java and C and computes a MFLOPS

Hi, I have a module sampling raw PCM data on Win CE as 10ms time slice (160 bytes), mono, 8000HZ, 16 bits per sample. Does anyone know what is the mflops for using fixed point on a Win CE compared to using floating point? Looking at the manual, "In practice, frame_size will correspond to 20 ms when using 8, 16, or 32 kHz sampling rate." for a 8 kHz sampling, the framesize should be

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?

Hy! I would like to know how run a montecarlo simulation with R. Thank you!!!! Francesca Matalucci __________________________________________________________________ Accesso Internet Gratis per utenti Excite! Attivalo subito! http://www.excite.it/hitech/accesso Il Mio Excite. Personalizza la tua Home page Excite come vuoi tu! http://www.excite.it AAA/Relazioni. Sfoglia gli annunci e trova la

Now that dragoneegg is robust in its default usage and the dragonegg svn is moderately stable with -fplugin-arg-dragonegg-enable-gcc-optzns, it is possible to gauge the impact of that feature. Comparing clang 2.9, FSF gcc 4.5.3svn, FSF gcc 4.6.0 and dragonegg svn with FSF gcc 4.5.3svn using the himenoBMTxpa benchmark, the enhancement to code performance from

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Jack Howarth <howarth.mailing.lists at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Jack Howarth > <howarth.mailing.lists at gmail.com> wrote: >> I finally got around to testing this on a Bloomfield processor (Early >> 2009 MacPro 2x2.66 GHz dual-quad core) and the regressions from >>