similar to: [LLVMdev] Problem in External/SPEC/CFP2000/177.mesa/Makefile ?

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 > >

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

Some of the run commandlines don't seem to be the *default ref* configuration. For instance, in 099.go, what's in the script is: LEVEL = ../../../.. BM=099.go ifeq ($(RUN_TYPE),test) STDIN_FILENAME = /dev/null STDOUT_FILENAME = null.out RUN_OPTIONS = 40 19 else STDIN_FILENAME = 2stone9.in STDOUT_FILENAME = 2stone9.out RUN_OPTIONS = 50 9 endif include ../../Makefile.spec95

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Long Fei wrote: > Does anyone know the "standard" commandline to compile and run spec95 > benchmarks ? > > I found some scripts in llvm test suite (External/SPEC/CINT95), but I am not > sure if they are the *default ref* configurations. <Some of them seem to use > smaller problem sizes.> SPEC95 was retired many years ago, so few people

On Feb 24, 2009, at 10:03 PM, Julien Lerouge wrote: > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 06:24:17PM -0800, Julien Lerouge wrote: >> I haven't tested with objdir != srcdir. > > Ok, that was broken. Attached is a smaller diff that should work in > all > cases. This sounds really cool Julien! Two questions: 1) does it preserve the checking that the existing tcl stuff does, which

On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 10:26:02AM -0800, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Feb 24, 2009, at 10:03 PM, Julien Lerouge wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 06:24:17PM -0800, Julien Lerouge wrote: > >> I haven't tested with objdir != srcdir. > > > > Ok, that was broken. Attached is a smaller diff that should work in > > all > > cases. > > This

Does anyone know the "standard" commandline to compile and run spec95 benchmarks ? I found some scripts in llvm test suite (External/SPEC/CINT95), but I am not sure if they are the *default ref* configurations. <Some of them seem to use smaller problem sizes.> SPEC95 was retired many years ago, so few people around me know how to compile and run them. I am building from

Hi David, It looks like you added the PWD= magic to Makefile.spec. It is preventing me from running bugpoint on the desktop, with errors like this: /Users/sabre/llvm/projects/llvm-test/External/SPEC/Sandbox.sh bugpoint- train Output/176.gcc.bugpoint-opt /Users/sabre/cvs/benchmarks/ speccpu2000/benchspec/CINT2000/176.gcc/data/train/input/ \

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Long Fei wrote: > which suggests the compiling command: > gcc -DSPEC_CPU95 -O2 -o spec_go g2.c g22.c g23.c g25.c g26.c g27a.c g27b.c > g28.c g29.c g2eye.c g2jlib2.c g2jos.c g2list.c g2reas.c g2s2.c g2s3.c g2shp.c > and the running commandline: > ./spec_go 50 9 2stone9.in > < are these correct ? > I believe that we only include test/train inputs for

Hello, I'm trying to compile to SPEC CPU2000 suite to LLVM bytecode, using the llvm-test harness. I have tried this using: - both the 1.7 and 1.8 releases, without succes (and running into the same problems in both releases) - both the gcc3 and gcc4 frontends I'm working on Linux/x86. LLVM is configured using: ./configure --prefix=/path/to/bin/dir and compiled using gmake; gmake

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

Hi Chris, > > I use NAG with llvm-gcc4. What sort of errors do you get? Did you > configure llvm-test with the appropriate flags to find it? > Yes, I did. llvm-test is configured as follows: (in /work/LLVM/1.8/ llvm/project/llvm-test): ./configure --with-spec2000=/work/SPEC_CPU2000_1.3_src/benchspec -- without-f2c --with-f95-bin=/work/NAG_f95/bin --with-f95-lib=/work/

On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:02:18PM -0800, Julien Lerouge wrote: > For 2), I think the NewNightlyTest.pl script would require some small > changes, to invoke the jcheck target instead of check, pass the desired > -j flag, and also parse the log. I'll take a look. In any case, the > changes would only apply to the DejaGNU tests (llvm-test already works > fine with -jX). Here is

On 31 Aug 2006, at 23:46, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Kenneth Hoste wrote: >> Bummer. I think I'll contact the NAG support for more info on >> this. Can you >> show me the content of your Makefile.nagfortran? > > It is identical to yours. > >> Also, it is possible to tell make only to compile benchmark X? How >> can I >>

Anyone know what to do about this: make[4]: Leaving directory `/proj/llvm/llvm-test-1/External/SPEC/CFP2000/173.applu' make[4]: Entering directory `/proj/llvm/llvm-test-1/External/SPEC/CFP2000/178.galgel' /usr/bin/f95 -w -S -O2 /opt/spec/CPU2000v1.3.1/benchspec//CFP2000/178.galgel/src/modules.f90 -o modules.c -fixed -kind=byte -dcfuns -dusty f95: unrecognized option '-kind=byte'

On 01 Sep 2006, at 10:05, Kenneth Hoste wrote: > >> >>> Also, it is possible to tell make only to compile benchmark X? How >>> can I >>> enforce this? >> >> Go into the directory for that benchmark, then run 'make' or >> whatever. > I tried tom compile each of the SPEC CPU2000 benchmarks using the make command is each respective

On 25 Nov 2006, at 09:02, Reid Spencer wrote: > Anyone know what to do about this: > > make[4]: Leaving directory `/proj/llvm/llvm-test-1/External/SPEC/ > CFP2000/173.applu' > make[4]: Entering directory `/proj/llvm/llvm-test-1/External/SPEC/ > CFP2000/178.galgel' > /usr/bin/f95 -w -S -O2 /opt/spec/CPU2000v1.3.1/benchspec// > CFP2000/178.galgel/src/modules.f90

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

On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 11:32:18AM -0700, Bill Wendling wrote: > On Jul 30, 2008, at 11:17 AM, Julien Lerouge wrote: >> ../../../llvm-gcc4.2-src/gcc/libgcc2.c:2095: error: conflicting types >> for 'VirtualProtect' >> >> c:/cygwin/home/jlerouge/buildbot/llvm/lib/../include/winbase.h:1998: >> error: previous declaration of 'VirtualProtect' was here