similar to: [LLVMdev] [llvm-testresults] bwilson__llvm-gcc_PROD__i386 nightly tester results

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 1000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] [llvm-testresults] bwilson__llvm-gcc_PROD__i386 nightly tester results"

2011 Jul 24
0
[LLVMdev] [llvm-testresults] bwilson__llvm-gcc_PROD__i386 nightly tester results
On Jul 24, 2011, at 3:02 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > A big compile time regression. Any ideas? > > Ciao, Duncan. False alarm. For some reason that I have not yet been able to figure out, these tests run significantly more slowly when I run them during the daytime, which I did for that run. I checked a few of the worst regressions reported here and they all recovered in subsequent
2011 Oct 12
2
[LLVMdev] [llvm-testresults] bwilson__llvm-gcc_PROD__i386 nightly tester results
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 >
2011 Oct 12
0
[LLVMdev] [llvm-testresults] bwilson__llvm-gcc_PROD__i386 nightly tester results
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: >> >>
2011 Dec 01
1
[LLVMdev] [llvm-testresults] bwilson__llvm-gcc_PROD__i386 nightly tester results
Are these 225 compile time regressions real? It sure looks bad! Ciao, Duncan. On 01/12/11 09:39, llvm-testresults at cs.uiuc.edu wrote: > > bwilson__llvm-gcc_PROD__i386 nightly tester results > > URL http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/simple/nts/380/ > Nickname bwilson__llvm-gcc_PROD__i386:4 > Name curlew.apple.com > > Run ID Order Start Time End Time > Current 380
2011 Apr 30
2
[LLVMdev] Greedy register allocation
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
2010 Feb 15
0
[LLVMdev] Measurements of the new inlinehint attribute
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
2011 Jan 12
1
[LLVMdev] About test suits
I have built and configured the test suits as told at http://llvm.org/docs/TestingGuide.html#testsuite. The llvm is built with configuration: SRC_DIR/configure --prefix=INS_DIR --enable-debug-runtime --disable-optimized --enable-debug-symbols --enable-assertions This configuration is used again in the re-configure process. However, after the re-configure process, the following "make"
2015 Feb 26
5
[LLVMdev] [RFC] AArch64: Should we disable GlobalMerge?
Hi all, I've started looking at the GlobalMerge pass, enabled by default on ARM and AArch64. I think we should reconsider that, at least for AArch64. As is, the pass just merges all globals together, in groups of 4KB (AArch64, 128B on ARM). At the time it was enabled, the general thinking was "it's almost free, it doesn't affect performance much, we might as well use it".
2018 Aug 14
3
[RFC] Delaying phi-to-select transformation until later in the pass pipeline
Summary ======= I'm planning on adjusting SimplifyCFG so that it doesn't turn two-entry phi nodes into selects until later in the pass pipeline, to give passes which can understand phis but not selects more opportunity to optimize. The thing I'm trying to do which made me think of doing this is described below, but from the benchmarking I've done it looks like this is overall a
2011 Jul 25
2
[LLVMdev] [llvm-testresults] bwilson__llvm-gcc_PROD__i386 nightly tester results
Hi Bob, >> A big compile time regression. Any ideas? >> >> Ciao, Duncan. > > False alarm. For some reason that I have not yet been able to figure out, these tests run significantly more slowly when I run them during the daytime, which I did for that run. I checked a few of the worst regressions reported here and they all recovered in subsequent runs. here is a crazy
2018 Aug 15
2
[RFC] Delaying phi-to-select transformation until later in the pass pipeline
I'm concerned that we're focusing on one side of this.  Let me point out a few concerns w/changing the canonical form here: 1. LICM does not know how to hoist or sink regions.  It does know how to hoist and sink selects. 2. InstCombine has limited support for triangles/diamonds, but fairly extensive support for selects. 3. EarlyCSE and GVN do not know how to eliminate fully
2012 Jun 05
2
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] add x32 psABI support
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
2014 Sep 09
1
[LLVMdev] Please benchmark new x86 vector shuffle lowering, planning to make it the default very soon!
> On Sep 9, 2014, at 1:47 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at apple.com <mailto:qcolombet at apple.com>> wrote: > Hi Chandler, > > I had observed some improvements and regressions with the new lowering. > > Here are the numbers for an Ivy Bridge machine fixed at
2018 Aug 17
2
[RFC] Delaying phi-to-select transformation until later in the pass pipeline
> On Aug 15, 2018, at 10:57 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On 08/15/2018 02:38 PM, Philip Reames via llvm-dev wrote: >> I'm concerned that we're focusing on one side of this. Let me point out a few concerns w/changing the canonical form here: >> >> LICM does not know how to hoist or sink regions. It does know
2011 Nov 23
1
[LLVMdev] Follow-up questions after successful upgrade to LLVM 3.0rc4
In response to: > Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 18:24:16 +0100 > From: Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr<mailto:baldrick at free.fr>> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Follow-up questions after successful upgrade to > LLVM 3.0rc4 > To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu<mailto:llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Hi Kevin, >> Since I don't have llvm-gcc installed, I tried to do the
2014 Sep 15
2
[LLVMdev] Testing the new CFL alias analysis
On CINT2006 ARM64/ref input/lto+pgo I practically measure no performance difference for the 7 benchmarks that compile. This includes bzip2 (although different source base than in CINT2000), mcf, hmmer, sjeng, h364ref, astar, xalancbmk On Sep 15, 2014, at 11:59 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Gerolf Hoflehner"
2014 Sep 16
2
[LLVMdev] Testing the new CFL alias analysis
----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gerolf Hoflehner" <ghoflehner at apple.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "LLVM Dev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "Jiangning Liu" <liujiangning1 at gmail.com>, "George Burgess IV" > <george.burgess.iv at gmail.com> > Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014
2013 Jul 14
6
[LLVMdev] Enabling the SLP vectorizer by default for -O3
Hi, LLVM’s SLP-vectorizer is a new pass that combines similar independent instructions in a straight-line code. It is currently not enabled by default, and people who want to experiment with it can use the clang command line flag “-fslp-vectorize”. I ran LLVM’s test suite with and without the SLP vectorizer on a Sandybridge mac (using SSE4, w/o AVX). Based on my performance measurements
2014 Sep 09
5
[LLVMdev] Please benchmark new x86 vector shuffle lowering, planning to make it the default very soon!
Hi Chandler, Thanks for fixing the problem with the insertps mask. Generally the new shuffle lowering looks promising, however there are some cases where the codegen is now worse causing runtime performance regressions in some of our internal codebase. You have already mentioned how the new shuffle lowering is missing some features; for example, you explicitly said that we currently lack of
2005 Nov 07
0
[LLVMdev] LLVM 1.6 Release Branch
Everything builds fine on sparc. The configure script needs to be fixed though (see previous email). Sparc testing results: make check: # of expected passes 1189 # of expected failures 34 Regressions Single Source: None New Failures Single Source (new tests): 2005-05-12-Int64ToFP: llc,jit Regressions MultiSource: Applications/d/make_dparser: llc, cbe, jit