similar to: [LLVMdev] dragonegg FSF gcc merge?

Hi Jack, > Is there a timeline for when dragonegg might be > merged into gcc (4.6 perhaps)? I ask because FSF gcc > has allowed code in as technology previews before. > For instance, graphite really wasn't that usable in > gcc 4.4 and produced wrong code in the Polyhedron > 2005 benchmarks until gcc 4.5. So as long as it can bootstrap > gcc 4.6 and works in general,

On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 04:14:17PM +0200, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Jack, > > > Is there a timeline for when dragonegg might be > > merged into gcc (4.6 perhaps)? I ask because FSF gcc > > has allowed code in as technology previews before. > > For instance, graphite really wasn't that usable in > > gcc 4.4 and produced wrong code in the Polyhedron >

On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 05:22:17PM +0200, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Jack, > >>>> Is there a timeline for when dragonegg might be >>>> merged into gcc (4.6 perhaps)? I ask because FSF gcc >>>> has allowed code in as technology previews before. >>>> For instance, graphite really wasn't that usable in >>>> gcc 4.4 and produced

Hi Jack, >>> Is there a timeline for when dragonegg might be >>> merged into gcc (4.6 perhaps)? I ask because FSF gcc >>> has allowed code in as technology previews before. >>> For instance, graphite really wasn't that usable in >>> gcc 4.4 and produced wrong code in the Polyhedron >>> 2005 benchmarks until gcc 4.5. So as long as it

On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo.med.uc.edu> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 05:22:17PM +0200, Duncan Sands wrote: >> Hi Jack, >> >>>>>      Is there a timeline for when dragonegg might be >>>>> merged into gcc (4.6 perhaps)? I ask because FSF gcc >>>>> has allowed code in as technology previews

Hi Jack, > Attached are the Polyhedron 2005 benchmark results for current llvm/dragonegg svn > on x86_64-apple-darwin11 built against Xcode 4.3.2 and FSF gcc 4.6.3. thanks for the numbers. How does this compare to LLVM 3.0 - were there any regressions? Ciao, Duncan. The benchmarks > for -msse3 and -msse4 appear identical (at least for degg+optnz). This is fortunate > since

Attached are the Polyhedron 2005 benchmark results for current llvm/dragonegg svn on x86_64-apple-darwin11 built against Xcode 4.3.2 and FSF gcc 4.6.3. The benchmarks for -msse3 and -msse4 appear identical (at least for degg+optnz). This is fortunate since there seems to be a bug in -msse4 on 2.33 GHz (T7600) Intel Core 2 Duo Merom (http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=12434).

I'm not certain yet which commit in the last couple of days caused this, but the current llvm/dragonegg svn shows a major improvement in the runtime of the xplor-nih testsuite when xplor-nih is built with FSF gcc 4.6.1 and the dragonegg plugin at -O3 -ffast-math -funroll-loops. Previously the xplor-nih testsuite always executed in ~40 sec but now it is coming it at 34.5 sec which is about the

On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 09:26:38AM +0200, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Jack, > >> Attached are the Polyhedron 2005 benchmark results for current llvm/dragonegg svn >> on x86_64-apple-darwin11 built against Xcode 4.3.2 and FSF gcc 4.6.3. > > thanks for the numbers. How does this compare to LLVM 3.0 - were there any > regressions? The results from just before

On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 08:57:51 -0400 Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo.med.uc.edu> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 09:26:38AM +0200, Duncan Sands wrote: > > Hi Jack, > > > >> Attached are the Polyhedron 2005 benchmark results for current > >> llvm/dragonegg svn on x86_64-apple-darwin11 built against Xcode > >> 4.3.2 and FSF gcc 4.6.3. > > >

Duncan, With the commit from http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20121203/158488.html, the Polyhedron 2005 benchmarks complete again on x86_64-apple-darwin12. The result are similar to what were seen with FSF gcc 4.6.2svn and llvm/dragonegg 3.0 (which was the last release that passed pb05) http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2011-October/044091.html. Jack

On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 06:53:05AM -0700, Peter Collingbourne wrote: > On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 09:25:55AM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote: > > Duncan, > > I was wondering if you plan on supporting the build of dragonegg under gcc 4.8.1svn > > for the llvm 3.3 release? Is the deprecation and poisoning of IDENT_ASM_OP too problematic > > to work around without some

Hi Jack, thanks for these numbers. > With the commit from http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20121203/158488.html, > the Polyhedron 2005 benchmarks complete again on x86_64-apple-darwin12. The result are similar to what > were seen with FSF gcc 4.6.2svn and llvm/dragonegg 3.0 (which was the last release that passed pb05) >

The Polyhedron 2005 benchmark results for dragonegg svn at r141492 using FSF gcc 4.6.2svn measured on x86_64-apple-darwin11 are listed below. The benchmarks used the optimizaton flags... -msse4 -ffast-math -funroll-loops -O3 in all cases. The use of -fplugin-arg-dragonegg-enable-gcc-optzns to allow for autovectorization from the FSF gcc front-end only produces a single run-time regression,

Duncan, With r182593, the dragonegg 3.3 branch now completely passes the Polyhedron 2005 benchmarks using the FSF gcc 4.8.1svn compiler. Thanks. Jack Tested on x86_apple-darwin12 Compile Flags: -ffast-math -funroll-loops -O3 de-gfortran47: /sw/lib/gcc4.7/bin/gfortran -fplugin=/sw/lib/gcc4.7/lib/dragonegg.so -specs=/sw/lib/gcc4.7/lib/integrated-as.specs de-gfortran48:

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 03:40:00PM +0200, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Jack, > > On 23/05/13 15:37, Jack Howarth wrote: >> Below are the results for the Polyhedron 2005 benchmarks compiled with llvm/compiler-rt/dragonegg 3.3svn at r182439 against current >> FSF gcc 4.7.3svn and 4.8.1svn. The only major bug remaining in the dragonegg 3.3svn support for gcc 4.8.x is

Try -mllvm -disable-unroll-scev if you're curious. There can be some luck involved. If you have the bitcode for the important function, I may be able to convert it into a test case to avoid regressing. I usually grab the unoptimized bitcode as follows: -emit-llvm -mllvm -disable-llvm-optzns -o module.bc -Andy On Sep 6, 2011, at 12:03 PM, Owen Anderson wrote: > Seems very likely to be

Below are the results for the Polyhedron 2005 benchmarks compiled with llvm/compiler-rt/dragonegg 3.3svn at r182439 against current FSF gcc 4.7.3svn and 4.8.1svn. The only major bug remaining in the dragonegg 3.3svn support for gcc 4.8.x is http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=15980 which results in unresolved symbols for _iround and _iroundf in the aermod and rnflow testcases. Note that this

Seems very likely to be related to Andy's SCEV-unroll-loops changes. --Owen On Sep 6, 2011, at 11:56 AM, Jack Howarth wrote: > I'm not certain yet which commit in the last couple of days caused this, > but the current llvm/dragonegg svn shows a major improvement in the runtime > of the xplor-nih testsuite when xplor-nih is built with FSF gcc 4.6.1 and the > dragonegg plugin

On Apr 9, 2010, at 10:11 AM, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote: >> >> Duncan, >> I'll broach the topic on gcc at gcc.gnu.org and see what the >> responses are. Why can't dragon-egg live in both places and >> be re-merged regularly? > > Re-merging it regularly sounds like it would require extra work beyond > what Duncan's already doing to maintain it.