similar to: [LLVMdev] Adding Polybench to the test suite

Hi Duncan, On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Douglas, > >> We are trying to add Polybench[1] to the LLVM test suite. So far we >> have all but five benchmarks working fine. The problems we're having >> in those five benchmarks are due to gcc's versus clang's different >> ways to output 'Nan's. We

Hi all, PolyBench (http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~pouchet/software/polybench/) is a well-known benchmark for polyhedral compiler. Since LLVM-Polly http://polly.llvm.org/) has provided a very good polyhedral optimizer for LLVM, could we add this benchmark to LLVM test-suite? I have attached the patch file to add PolyBench to LLVM test-suite. Best wishes, Star Tan -------------- next part

Hi Douglas, > We are trying to add Polybench[1] to the LLVM test suite. So far we > have all but five benchmarks working fine. The problems we're having > in those five benchmarks are due to gcc's versus clang's different > ways to output 'Nan's. We are working to solve this. is it normal (i.e. valid) that they output NaN's differently, or is it a bug? Ciao,

On 06/08/2013 11:26 PM, Star Tan wrote: > Hi all, > > > PolyBench (http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~pouchet/software/polybench/) is a well-known benchmark for polyhedral compiler. Since LLVM-Polly http://polly.llvm.org/) has provided a very good polyhedral optimizer for LLVM, could we add this benchmark to LLVM test-suite? > > > I have attached the patch file to add

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: >> polybench/linear-algebra/kernels/symm, FP_ABSTOLERANCE=1e1 >> polybench/linear-algebra/solvers/gramschmidt, FP_ABSTOLERANCE=1e0 >> What should be a good relative tolerance to set for these two tests? > > What's the minimum relative tolerance that you need for them to pass? Setting

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > I don't think that Clang/LLVM uses it by default on x86_64. If you're using -Ofast, however, that would explain it. I recommend looking at -O3 vs -O0 and make sure those are the same. -Ofast enables -ffast-math, which can legitimately cause differences. > The following tests pass at "-O3" and

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Renato Golin" <renato.golin at linaro.org> >> To: "Sebastian Pop" <sebpop.llvm at gmail.com> >> Cc: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "Sebastian Paul Pop" <s.pop at samsung.com>,

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 10:39 PM, Sebastian Pop <sebpop.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Renato Golin" <renato.golin at linaro.org> >>> To: "Sebastian Pop" <sebpop.llvm at gmail.com> >>> Cc: "Hal

Hi, I would need some help to fix polybench/symm: void kernel_symm(int ni, int nj, DATA_TYPE alpha, DATA_TYPE beta, DATA_TYPE POLYBENCH_2D(C,NI,NJ,ni,nj), DATA_TYPE POLYBENCH_2D(A,NJ,NJ,nj,nj), DATA_TYPE POLYBENCH_2D(B,NI,NJ,ni,nj)) { int i, j, k; DATA_TYPE acc; /* C := alpha*A*B + beta*C, A is symetric */ for (i = 0; i < _PB_NI; i++) for (j = 0; j < _PB_NJ; j++) {

Bill, > Hi Pawel, > > Could you branch polly as well for the 3.2 release? We will need to contact the 'polly' guys to figure out how best to add it to the release (testing, etc.). Sure. But I do not know much about polly so 'polly' guys please fill me on the details. For the 3.2 release I will need: - to know how to build it seems to be covered here

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Renato Golin" <renato.golin at linaro.org> >> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> >> Cc: "Sebastian Paul Pop" <s.pop at samsung.com>, "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Matthias

On Nov 13, 2012, at 11:16 AM, Pawel Wodnicki <pawel at 32bitmicro.com> wrote: > Bill, > >> Hi Pawel, >> >> Could you branch polly as well for the 3.2 release? We will need to contact the 'polly' guys to figure out how best to add it to the release (testing, etc.). > > Sure. > > But I do not know much about polly so 'polly' guys please

On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 5:02 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Sebastian Pop" <sebpop.llvm at gmail.com> >> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> >> Cc: "Sebastian Paul Pop" <s.pop at samsung.com>, "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Matthias

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Renato Golin" <renato.golin at linaro.org> > To: "Sebastian Pop" <sebpop.llvm at gmail.com> > Cc: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "Sebastian Paul Pop" <s.pop at samsung.com>, "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, > "Matthias Braun" <matze at

It would help if you sent the IR you're giving to opt or at least a complete C function and your clang command line. ~Craig On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 3:05 PM, hameeza ahmed <hahmed2305 at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I m unable to vectorize following kernel by opt tool; > > for (i = 0; i < _PB_NI; i++) > for (j = 0; j < _PB_NJ; j++) > { >

On 12 October 2016 at 13:04, Sebastian Pop <sebpop.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > The other problem is the reference output does not match > at "-O0 -ffp-contract=off". It might be that the reference output was recorded > at "-O3 -ffp-contract=off". I think that this hides either a compiler > bug or a test bug. Ah, yes! You mentioned before and I forgot to

Hello, I m unable to vectorize following kernel by opt tool; for (i = 0; i < _PB_NI; i++) for (j = 0; j < _PB_NJ; j++) { tmp[i][j] = 0; for (k = 0; k < _PB_NK; ++k) tmp[i][j] += alpha * A[i][k] * B[k][j]; } for (i = 0; i < _PB_NI; i++) for (j = 0; j < _PB_NL; j++) { D[i][j] *= beta; for (k = 0; k < _PB_NJ; ++k) D[i][j] +=

Hi all, I'm trying to get the llvm's IR from the source code of Polybench (OMP) https://github.com/cavazos-lab/PolyBench-ACC/tree/master/OpenMP. I noticed a considerable difference between the IR generated using clang -emit-llvm -fopenmp and clang -emit-llvm: * using the -fopenmp flag I get a simplified IR in which I read a single basic block where I can highlight a llvm.memcpy

On 12 October 2016 at 05:35, Sebastian Pop <sebpop.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > polybench/linear-algebra/solvers/gramschmidt/ exposes the same problems as symm. > It does not match the reference output at -O0 -ffp-contract=off, > and it only passes all elements comparisons for FP_ABSTOLERANCE=1 for > "-Ofast" vs. "-O0 -ffp-contract=off". I think we're

On 14 October 2016 at 15:50, Sebastian Pop <sebpop.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > These 3 tests are passing with the following configurations: > -O3 -ffp-contract=off > -O3 -ffp-contract=on > -O0 -ffp-contract=off > -O0 -ffp-contract=on > > They are not passing at: > -Ofast -ffp-contract=on > -Ofast -ffp-contract=off Let's separate completely FP-contract and