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

Nothing that I'm aware of has changed with EH. Is it possible to bisect the problem? -bw On Jun 20, 2012, at 12:38 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Did something change with exception handling recently? A bunch of lit bots are > showing slower compile times for many tests. > > Ciao, Duncan. > > On 20/06/12 07:53, llvm-testresults at cs.uiuc.edu

Hi Bill, > Nothing that I'm aware of has changed with EH. Is it possible to bisect the problem? I don't see any relevant LLVM changes, so I guess clang C++ compilation slowed down due to some clang changes. I'm not going to investigate this. Ciao, Duncan. > > -bw > > On Jun 20, 2012, at 12:38 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > >> Did

Did something change with exception handling recently? A bunch of lit bots are showing slower compile times for many tests. Ciao, Duncan. On 20/06/12 07:53, llvm-testresults at cs.uiuc.edu wrote: > > lab-mini-03__O0-g__clang_DEV__x86_64 test results > <http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/1283?compare_to=1278&baseline=999> > > Run Order Start Time Duration >

On 07/30/2013 10:03 AM, Star Tan wrote: > Hi Tobias and all Polly developers, > > I have re-evaluated the Polly compile-time performance using newest > LLVM/Polly source code. You can view the results on > http://188.40.87.11:8000 > <http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/16?compare_to=9&baseline=9&aggregation_fn=median>. > > Especially, I also evaluated

At 2013-07-31 22:50:57,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >On 07/30/2013 10:03 AM, Star Tan wrote: >> Hi Tobias and all Polly developers, >> >> I have re-evaluated the Polly compile-time performance using newest >> LLVM/Polly source code. You can view the results on >> http://188.40.87.11:8000 >>

On 07/31/2013 09:23 PM, Star Tan wrote: > At 2013-07-31 22:50:57,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es > <mailto:tobias at grosser.es>> wrote: > >>On 07/30/2013 10:03 AM, Star Tan wrote: >>> Hi Tobias and all Polly developers, >>> >>> I have re-evaluated the Polly compile-time performance using newest >>> LLVM/Polly source

Hi Tobias and all Polly developers, I have re-evaluated the Polly compile-time performance using newest LLVM/Polly source code. You can view the results on http://188.40.87.11:8000. Especially, I also evaluated our r187102 patch file that avoids expensive failure string operations in normal execution. Specifically, I evaluated two cases for it: Polly-NoCodeGen: clang -O3 -load

At 2013-08-01 23:29:14,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >On 07/31/2013 09:23 PM, Star Tan wrote: >> At 2013-07-31 22:50:57,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es >> <mailto:tobias at grosser.es>> wrote: >> >>>On 07/30/2013 10:03 AM, Star Tan wrote: >>>> Hi Tobias and all Polly developers,

Hello all, I have done some basic experiments about Polly canonicalization passes and I found the SCEV canonicalization has significant impact on both compile-time and execution-time performance. Detailed results for SCEV and default canonicalization can be viewed on: http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/32 (or 33, 34) *pNoGen with SCEV canonicalization (run 32): -O3 -Xclang -load

At 2013-08-09 10:20:46,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote:>On 08/08/2013 06:27 PM, Star Tan wrote: >> At 2013-08-08 22:28:33,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >>> On 08/08/2013 01:29 AM, Star Tan wrote: >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>>

Hi llvm-dev@ LNT produces statistics and graphs (such as [0]) of debuginfo metrics, such as number of source variables with locations. It looks like these haven't run [1] since the move from svn to git -- are there any plans to get these running again? I find it highly useful to identify what commits have affected variable locations and how significant an affect. [0]

On 09/08/2013 08:03 PM, Star Tan wrote: > Hello all, > > > I have done some basic experiments about Polly canonicalization passes and I found the SCEV canonicalization has significant impact on both compile-time and execution-time performance. Interesting. > Detailed results for SCEV and default canonicalization can be viewed on: http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/32 (or

The debug info statistics bot is triggered by this job: http://green.lab.llvm.org/green/job/clang-stage2-Rthinlto/ which unfortunately hasn't been green in a very long time (>1mo). Alex/Azhar, do you know what's blocking that job? -- adrian > On Nov 20, 2019, at 9:46 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > +usual debug info folks (but I think in this case

On 08/08/2013 07:45 PM, Star Tan wrote: > At 2013-08-09 10:20:46,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote:>On 08/08/2013 06:27 PM, Star Tan wrote: >>> At 2013-08-08 22:28:33,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >>>> On 08/08/2013 01:29 AM, Star Tan wrote: >>>>> Hi all, >>>>>

On 08/08/2013 06:27 PM, Star Tan wrote: > At 2013-08-08 22:28:33,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >> On 08/08/2013 01:29 AM, Star Tan wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> >>> I have summarized the top 10 compiler passes for Polly when compiling LLVM test-ssuite. Results can be viewed on: >>>

Hi all, I have evaluated Polly's performance on LLVM test-suite with latest LLVM (r188054) and Polly (r187981).  Results can be viewed on: http://188.40.87.11:8000. There are mainly five new tests and each test is run with 10 samples: clang (run id = 27):  clang -O3 pollyBasic (run id = 28):  clang -O3 -load LLVMPolly.so pollyNoGen (run id = 29):  pollycc -O3 -mllvm -polly-optimizer=none

At 2013-08-08 22:28:33,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >On 08/08/2013 01:29 AM, Star Tan wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> >> I have summarized the top 10 compiler passes for Polly when compiling LLVM test-ssuite. Results can be viewed on: >>    

Hello all, I have evaluated the compile-time and execution-time performance of Polly canonicalization passes. Details can be referred to http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/recent_activity. There are four runs: pollyBasic (run 45): clang -O3 -Xclang -load -Xclang LLVMPolly.so pollyNoGenSCEV (run 44): clang -O3 -Xclang -load -Xclang LLVMPolly.so -mllvm -polly -mllvm -polly-codegen-scev

Now, we come to more evaluations on http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/recent_activity I mainly care about the compile-time and execution time impact for the following cases: pBasic (run 45): clang -O3 -load LLVMPolly.so pNoGenSCEV (run 44): clang -O3 -load LLVMPolly.so -polly-codegen-scev -polly -polly-optimizer=none -polly-code-generator=none pNoGenSCEV_nocan (run 47): same option

On 08/10/2013 06:59 PM, Star Tan wrote: > Hi all, > > I have evaluated Polly's performance on LLVM test-suite with latest LLVM (r188054) and Polly (r187981). Results can be viewed on: http://188.40.87.11:8000. Hi Star Tan, thanks for the update. > There are mainly five new tests and each test is run with 10 samples: > clang (run id = 27): clang -O3 > pollyBasic (run id =