similar to: [LLVMdev] tot clang/llvm and tot gcc performance comparision

Thanks David. Unfortunately many of us cannot use GPL v3 gcc so it's hard for us to investigate this. One question, can you tell if gcc is inlining significantly more than llvm? We have reports that this is one of the issue plaguing eon performance. There are also some relatively well known spec optimizations that we haven't implemented. e.g.

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

Hi, all I use llvm-gcc -O4 to compile SPEC 2000, some benchmarks can't be built successfully, such as 164.gzip, 175.vpr etc. The error messages are as follows. .. zh.o unlzw.o unpack.o unzip.o util.o zip.o -o gzip bits.o: file not recognized: File format not recognized collect2: ld returned 1 exit status specmake: *** [gzip] Error 1 specmake options 2> options.err |

On 2009-12-23 08:22, Li Shengmei wrote: > > Hi, all > > I use llvm-gcc –O4 to compile SPEC 2000, some benchmarks > can’t be built successfully, such as 164.gzip, 175.vpr etc. > > The error messages are as follows. > > > > …… > > zh.o unlzw.o unpack.o unzip.o util.o zip.o -o gzip > > bits.o: file not recognized: File format not recognized

If you are interesting to play around X32, you may refer to http://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/x32 to bootstrap a local environment on Linux. Yours - Michael -----Original Message----- From: cfe-commits-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:cfe-commits-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Liao, Michael Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 5:09 PM To: llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu; cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu

Friday I enabled the inlinehint function attribute in the inliner. It mostly affects the performance of -Os compiled code. I have made some measurements on the SPEC test suite to show what it means. I made three runs of then nightly tests. The baseline represents -Os with no inlinehint: make TEST=nightly OPTFLAGS=-Os EXTRA_LOPT_OPTIONS=-inlinehint-threshold=0

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 >>

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

Perhaps you noticed that LLVM gained a new optimizing register allocator yesterday (r130568). Linear scan is going away, and RAGreedy is the new default for optimizing builds. Hopefully, you noticed because your binaries were suddenly 2% smaller and 10% faster*. Some noticed because LLVM started crashing or miscompiling their code. Greedy replaces a fairly big chunk of the code generator, so

Hi Gerolf, Sorry for the delayed response. I had to get permission to share more details. I am allowed to share relative numbers but not absolute numbers. Any missing test is due to runtime failures (e.g., gcc failure due to the fused multiply pattern bug which Tim fixed later on). Thanks, Ana. Benchmarks ARM64 vs GCC 4.9 % ARM64 vs AArch64 % ARM64 vs AArch64 patched %

Hello, Some problems were solved, new ones arised... Getting closer though... The fixes for the previous problems are at the bottom of this email, bug reports will be submitted when all problems are solved. +++ New/remaining problems +++ Currently, 9/26 benchmarks compile and run succesfully. One (fma3d) still has a f95 related problem (see below). The other 16 are divided into two groups:

Hi Folks, Anyone got chance to review the patch adding X32 psABI support? Yours - Michael -----Original Message----- From: llvm-commits-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvm-commits-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Liao, Michael Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 11:18 AM To: llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu; cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu; cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re:

Hi folks, As Tim pointed out, we recently had the opportunity to collect 64-bit benchmark performance data for GCC 4.9, AArch64 and ARM64 compilers on a real hardware. It is a cortex-a53 device. Due to proprietary reasons we cannot share the full hardware configuration. The preliminary results were shared at the hackers lab at EuroLLVM yesterday. For those who could not make it, below is

Hi Evan, > Thanks David. Unfortunately many of us cannot use GPL v3 gcc so it's hard for us > to investigate this. One question, can you tell if gcc is inlining significantly > more than llvm? We have reports that this is one of the issue plaguing eon > performance. are you allowed to look at assembler output by GPL v3 gcc? If so, maybe someone else can do the compiling for you,

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

On Nov 17, 2010, at 11:14 PM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Evan, > >> Thanks David. Unfortunately many of us cannot use GPL v3 gcc so it's hard for us >> to investigate this. One question, can you tell if gcc is inlining significantly >> more than llvm? We have reports that this is one of the issue plaguing eon >> performance. > > are you allowed to look at

Hi, LLVM dev team: Thanks for your suggestion, I have done the experiment to compare the two pointer analysis(Andersen and Steensgaard) methods in LLVM, but the result was unexpected. In each test, I compare these two methods using same optimization; There are several tests, each with a different optimization. The benchmark is all the 11 C programs in CINT2000 of SPEC. In all the tests, I found

Dear guys, I've put the puzzle solver running on LLVM 2.1. Well, at least partially, for it is failing three of SPEC2000 benchmarks. I will try to debug it now. The results are not as good as before. I mean, the puzzle solver is still the same, but the default allocator is producing very good code now. Even though, the puzzle solver produces faster code for half the benchmarks. It

On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Kenneth Hoste wrote: > Some problems were solved, new ones arised... Getting closer though... > The fixes for the previous problems are at the bottom of this email, > bug reports will be submitted when all problems are solved. Kenneth, In general, I am more than happy to help people on this list. It is good for the community and I enjoy helping people be successful

Hi, LLVM dev team: Thanks for your suggestion, I have done the experiment to compare the two pointer analysis(Andersen and Steensgaard) methods in LLVM, but the result was unexpected. In each test, I compare these two methods using same optimization; There are several tests, each with a different optimization. The benchmark is all the 11 C programs in CINT2000 of SPEC. In all the tests, I found