similar to: [LLVMdev] updated code size comparison

On 12/16/2009 03:21 AM, John Regehr wrote: > Hopefully the results are more fair and useful now. Again, feedback is > appreciated. I would also avoid testcases using volatile. Smaller code on these testcases is often a sign of miscompilation rather than optimization. For example, http://embed.cs.utah.edu/embarrassing/src_harvested_dec_09/076389.c is miscompiled on GCC 3.4 and SunCC

On Dec 16, 2009, at 1:26 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 12/16/2009 03:21 AM, John Regehr wrote: >> Hopefully the results are more fair and useful now. Again, feedback is >> appreciated. > > I would also avoid testcases using volatile. Smaller code on these > testcases is often a sign of miscompilation rather than optimization. > For example, >

Hi Paolo, > I would also avoid testcases using volatile. Smaller code on these testcases > is often a sign of miscompilation rather than optimization. For example, > http://embed.cs.utah.edu/embarrassing/src_harvested_dec_09/076389.c is > miscompiled on GCC 3.4 and SunCC 5.10. Yeah, there are definitely several examples where small code is generated by miscompilation, especially

> The issue here is more arbitrary differences due to different default > code generation choices; for example, clang defaults to generating > SSE2 code, while llvm-gcc defaults to using x87 FP. Aha, this explains some apparently bizarre results such as the second one (018427, d) on this page: http://embed.cs.utah.edu/embarrassing/dec_09/harvest/llvm-gcc-head_clang-head/ I had been

Hi Torok- > Could you also add a main() for each of these files, and do > a very simple test that the optimized functions actually work? Unfortunately, testing isolated C functions is much harder than just passing them random data! Consider this function: int foo (int x, int y) { return x+y; } The behavior of foo() is undefined when x+y overflows. If course it is trivial to come

On 01/20/2010 10:10 PM, John Regehr wrote: > Hi Torok- > >> Could you also add a main() for each of these files, and do >> a very simple test that the optimized functions actually work? > > Unfortunately, testing isolated C functions is much harder than just > passing them random data! > > Consider this function: > > int foo (int x, int y) { return x+y; }

> Indeed, but can't an analysis find at least one value for each variable > where the behavior is not undefined? > Such a value must exist, or the entire function is useless if it always > has undefined behavior. Good point :). > Sure, testing on 1 such value (or a random) value won't prove that the > result is correct, but may help finding trivial > miscompilations

> However I would prefer to leave these testcases in, unless there is a > strong feeling that they are too distracting. They serve as poignant > little reminders about how easy it is to get volatile wrong... They skew the results in favor of the less careful compilers so they are more than simply distracting, they are unfair. -- Eric Botcazou

I just upgraded to Solaris 8, and downloaded the the following binary package from www.samba.org <http://www.samba.org> : samba-2.2.7-sol8-suncc-64bit.pkg.gz When trying to gunzip it, here is my output: /home/ccampbell # gunzip samba-2.2.7-sol8-suncc-64bit.pkg.gz gunzip: samba-2.2.7-sol8-suncc-64bit.pkg.gz: not in gzip format /home/ccampbell # file samba-2.2.7-sol8-suncc-64bit.pkg.gz

On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > this is indeed a miscompilation by your system compiler.  However so many > compilers miscompiled this that a workaround was committed to svn.  So you > may want to check out llvm and llvm-gcc from svn.  Alternatively, maybe > the patch applies to llvm 2.5 too.  I've attached it. I will try the

Thanks for the suggestions. It looks like Duncan's suggestion got me a step closer, but I still can't build llvm-gcc... On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:56 AM, Christian Sayer <Christian.Sayer at dibcom.fr> wrote: > did you try a simple > > $ ../llvm-2.5/configure --prefix=/pkg/bin/llvm/ > CC=/pkg/bin/gcc-4.2.4/bin/gcc CXX=/pkg/bin/gcc-4.2.4/bin/g++ Tried that, same error.

Hi, > cc1: /pkg/build/llvm/llvm-2.5/include/llvm/Transforms/Utils/InlineCost.h:44: > llvm::InlineCost::InlineCost(int, int): Assertion `Cost == C && "Cost > exceeds InlineCost precision"' failed. > ../../llvm-gcc4.2-2.5.source/gcc/libgcov.c:644: internal compiler error: Aborted this is indeed a miscompilation by your system compiler. However so many compilers

2009/12/14 Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com>: > I'd recommend targeting (with both -march and -mtune) a simple and > commonly available CPU type like "core2" or "pentium4".  ICC should > have both of these and gcc/llvm definitely do. While I would say that, to be fair, the comparison should be made with the same options (-O3 only or something of the

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Renato Golin <rengolin at systemcall.org> wrote: > 2009/12/14 Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com>: >> I'd recommend targeting (with both -march and -mtune) a simple and >> commonly available CPU type like "core2" or "pentium4".  ICC should >> have both of these and gcc/llvm definitely do. > > While I

Hi all, Where could I get souce code for samba-2.2.8a-1-sol8-suncc-64bit.pkg, I checked in samba.org but I just found pacakage( samba-2.2.8a-1-sol8-suncc-64bit.pkg). Thanks, Madhavi

I am trying to compile R on Linux using SunStudio. Configure flags are mostly as suggested in the R install guide. CC=/opt/sun/sunstudio12.1/bin/suncc CFLAGS="-g -xc99 -xlibmil -xlibmieee" MAIN_CFLAGS=-g SHLIB_CFLAGS=-g CPPFLAGS="-I. -I/opt/sun/sunstudio12.1/prod/include -I/opt/sun/sunstudio12.1/prod/include/cc" CPPFLAGS+="-I/opt/sun/sunstudio12.1/prod/include/cc/sys

Hi Scott, > On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > > this is indeed a miscompilation by your system compiler. However so many > > compilers miscompiled this that a workaround was committed to svn. So you > > may want to check out llvm and llvm-gcc from svn. Alternatively, maybe > > the patch applies to llvm 2.5 too.

> I started looking through the llvm-gcc vs. clang comparisons, and > noticed that in > http://embed.cs.utah.edu/embarrassing/jan_10/harvest/source/A9/A9AB5AE7.c > , size_t is declared incorrectly. Any idea how that might have > happened? Hi Eli, Thanks for pointing this out, I'll look into this tonight. However I can give you the quick generic answer right now (of course

Hello all, I have downloaded samba-2.2.8a-1-sol8-suncc-32bit.pkg.gz and I am trying to gunzip it but I get gunzip: samba-2.2.8a-1-sol8-gcc295.pkg.gz: not in gzip format what could be the problem ? ********************************************************************************* Ce courriel ainsi que ses pieces jointes sont strictement reserves a l'usage de la ou du destinataire et peut

Thank you Martyn, I am one step closer. Using R-patched, configure was successful. However, make exited with an error. Configure summary: Installation directory: /usr/local C compiler: /opt/sun/sunstudio12.1/bin/suncc -g -O -xc99 -xlibmil -m32 -xlibmieee -nofstore Fortran 77 compiler: /opt/sun/sunstudio12.1/bin/sunf95 -g -O -libmil -m32 -nofstore C++ compiler: