similar to: [LLVMdev] spec tests + PWD=

I did make that change to support the following code in ToolRunner.cpp. I found that if I did not explicitly set PWD when invoking bugpoint, then it would not be in the environment. I'm not sure why PWD is not being inherited... perhaps some make weirdness... or bash??? and I don't know how it ever worked before my change. // Full path to the binary. We need to cd to the exec

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005, Tanu Sharma wrote: > > I have a doubt. > > This is an excerpt of the raw report I get after running Spec benchmarks > through llvm-test.I am trying to calculate the program execution > time.Does the output result in bold corresponds to "lli time" in > Makefile.spec ? I am not interested in llc, jit or cbe.I simply need the > normal

I have a doubt. This is an excerpt of the raw report I get after running Spec benchmarks through llvm-test.I am trying to calculate the program execution time.Does the output result in bold corresponds to "lli time" in Makefile.spec ? I am not interested in llc, jit or cbe.I simply need the normal bytecode and native code execution times after running my pass over them.I have modified

Hi, guys, I am comparing the performance of the default scheduler (seems to be the one that minimizes register pressure) with no scheduler (-pre-RA-sched=none), and I got these numbers. The ratio is low_reg_pressure/none, that is, the lower the number, the better the performance with low register pressure: CFP2000/177.mesa/177.mesa 1.00 CFP2000/179.art/179.art

A big compile time regression. Any ideas? Ciao, Duncan. On 22/07/11 19:13, llvm-testresults at cs.uiuc.edu wrote: > > bwilson__llvm-gcc_PROD__i386 nightly tester results > > URL http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/simple/nts/253/ > Nickname bwilson__llvm-gcc_PROD__i386:4 > Name curlew.apple.com > > Run ID Order Start Time End Time > Current 253 0 2011-07-22 16:22:04

Hi Duncan, Do you have sources also in the $LLVM_SRC_ROOT/projects/test-suite/External/SPEC/CINT2000/164.gzip? The following is content of above directory in my case. I have copied the CINT2000 sources in this directory manually. $ls -1 $LLVM_SRC_ROOT/projects/test-suite/External/SPEC/CINT2000/164.gzip 164.gzip.reference_output 164.gzip.reference_output.small compile_info compile_parms

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 >

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Thu, 12 May 2005, John Criswell wrote: > >> Here is a more complete list of regressions for the platforms listed >> below. Some of the regressions from the previous list I emailed a few >> days ago have been fixed or were false positives. Thanks to all >> who've helped fix things. >> >> We would like to try to get as many

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: >> >>

Dear All, Here is a more complete list of regressions for the platforms listed below. Some of the regressions from the previous list I emailed a few days ago have been fixed or were false positives. Thanks to all who've helped fix things. We would like to try to get as many of these fixed as possible before I create the release branch (still scheduled for tomorrow, Friday). I'll

On Thu, 12 May 2005, John Criswell wrote: > Here is a more complete list of regressions for the platforms listed below. > Some of the regressions from the previous list I emailed a few days ago have > been fixed or were false positives. Thanks to all who've helped fix things. > > We would like to try to get as many of these fixed as possible before I > create the release

My source directory wasn't correct but now I have a correct test directory structure. $ls -1 ~/tmp/speccpu2000/benchspec/CINT2000/164.gzip/ data docs exe result run Spec src version I reconfigured the llvm with ../configure --prefix=/home/dskhudia/tmp/llvm-install --with-llvmgccdir=/home/dskhudia/tmp/llvm-install --with-externals=/home/dskhudia/tmp Now I can execute the make -C 164.gzip but

Hi Daya, > checking for spec2000 benchmark sources... no, not found in > $LLVM_SRC_ROOT/projects/test-suite-externals/speccpu2000/benchspec I have 164.gzip at $LLVM_SRC_ROOT/projects/test-suite/External/SPEC/CINT2000/164.gzip and it seems to work. Ciao, Duncan.

So.. I have investigated more on how a new function attribute to disable optimization on a per-function basis could be implemented. At the current state, with the lack of specific support from the pass managers I found two big problems when trying to implement a prototype implementation of the new attribute. Here are the problems found: 1) It is not safe to disable some transform passes in the

Hi, I previously made a proposal for adding a pragma for per-function optimization level control due to a number of requests from our customers (See http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.compilers.clang.devel/28958 for the previous discussion), however the discussion was inconclusive. Some of my colleagues recently had the opportunity to discuss the proposal with a number of people at and

Hi, In my experiments, I need to disable several linking optimizations. However, bzip2, vortex and eon failed if "-disable-opt" was passed to gccld. I tried the out-of-box llvm and the building process provided by llvm-test. The same problem was observed, when I specified EXTRA_LINKTIME_OPT_FLAGS = -disable-opt on Makefile.program and simplied typed "make" under

Thanks, Dale, that really helps. What about disabling only one backend of a specific test? Thanks, --Patrick On 07/22/10 16:04, Dale Johannesen wrote: > > On Jul 22, 2010, at 2:44 PMPDT, Patrick Alexander Simmons wrote: > >> From http://llvm.org/docs/TestingGuide.html >> >> Some tests are known to fail. Some are bugs that we have not fixed yet; >> others are

Hello folks, The makefile for 177.mesa says that for a small problem size, it will get 100 frames. But in the spec sources I have, the test folder only contains numbers for 10 frames: $ speccpu2000/benchspec/CFP2000/177.mesa/data $ wc -l test/input/numbers 10 test/input/numbers Generating 100 frames causes undefined behaviour because the program is doing unchecked fscanf on that

On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 8:23 AM, <Andrea_DiBiagio at sn.scee.net> wrote: > So.. > I have investigated more on how a new function attribute to disable > optimization on a per-function basis could be implemented. > At the current state, with the lack of specific support from the pass > managers I found two big problems when trying to implement a prototype > implementation of

On Dec 23, 2009, at 6:26 PM, Julien Lerouge wrote: > Hello folks, > > The makefile for 177.mesa says that for a small problem size, it will > get 100 frames. But in the spec sources I have, the test folder only > contains numbers for 10 frames: > > $ speccpu2000/benchspec/CFP2000/177.mesa/data $ wc -l test/input/ > numbers > 10 test/input/numbers > >