similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVM compile speed significantly slower than GCC (w/ test case)

Thanks, Matt. This is great information. Sounds like Chandler is looking into the details of what's going on. -Jim On Jul 19, 2012, at 3:55 PM, Matt Fischer <mattfischer84 at gmail.com> wrote: > I've been doing some profiling of LLVM on our codebase, to see how it > stacks up to the existing GCC build that we do. The primary thing I'm > focusing on at the moment is

>> GCC (4.5.2, Windows build from CodeSourcery) - With -O0: 110ms, with -O2: 215ms >> Clang/LLVM (Release mode, LLVM git hash 7f5714f4..., clang git hash >> 9d9cf5...) - With -O0: 110ms, with -O2: 640ms Hi Matt, I only see 2x slowdown on my machine (consistently, O2 and O3), but that's still bad. If you compile to IR then pass "opt -time-passes" you can get a

LLVMers, The 2.5 pre-release is available for testing: http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.5/ If you have time, I'd appreciate anyone who can help test the release. Please do the following: 1) Download/compile llvm source, and either compile llvm-gcc source or use llvm-gcc binary (please compile llvm-gcc with fortran if you can). 2) Run make check, send me the testrun.log 3) Run "make

LLVMers, The 2.1 pre-release (version 1) is available for testing: http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.1/version1/ I'm looking for members of the LLVM community to test the 2.1 release. There are 2 ways you can help: 1) Download llvm-2.1, llvm-test-2.1, and the appropriate llvm-gcc4.0 binary. Run "make check" and the full llvm-test suite (make TEST=nightly report). 2) Download

Hi Tanya, > 1) Compile llvm from source and untar the llvm-test in the projects > directory (name it llvm-test or test-suite). Choose to use a > pre-compiled llvm-gcc or re-compile it yourself. I compiled llvm and llvm-gcc with separate objects directories. Platform is x86_64-linux-gnu. > 2) Run make check, report any failures (FAIL or unexpected pass). Note > that you need to

LLVMers, 2.6 pre-release2 is ready to be tested by the community. http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.6/ If you have time, I'd appreciate anyone who can help test the release. To test llvm-gcc: 1) Compile llvm from source and untar the llvm-test in the projects directory (name it llvm-test or test-suite). Choose to use a pre- compiled llvm-gcc or re-compile it yourself. 2) Run make check,

G'Day Tanya, Is it too late to bring in the following patches to fix some major brokenness in the AuroraUX tool chain for 2.6? http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/Driver/Tools.cpp?r1=84468&r2=84469&view=diff&pathrev=84469 http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/Driver/Tools.cpp?r1=84265&r2=84266&view=diff&pathrev=84266

I just upgraded our optimizer to LLVM 3.0 from 2.8 and noticed that the scalar replacement of aggregates pass takes a lot longer for some code. Has there been a performance regression in this pass, or does it do more work? LLVM 3.0: Total Execution Time: 1.0600 seconds (1.0526 wall clock) ---User Time--- --System Time-- --User+System-- ---Wall Time--- --- Name --- 0.5100

Hi, LLVM 2.1-pre1 test results: Linux (SUSE) on x86 (P4) Release mode, but with assertions enabled LLVM srcdir == objdir # of expected passes 2250 # of expected failures 5 I ran the llvm-test suite on my desktop while I was also working on that PC, so don't put too much trust in the timing info. Especially during the "spiff" test the machine was swapping

Hi guys,   I have two data sets of prices: endprice0, endprice1   I use the Wilcox test:   wilcox.test(endprice0, endprice1, paired = TRUE, alternative = "two.sided",  conf.int = T, conf.level = 0.9)   The result is with V = 1819, p-value = 0.8812.   Then I calculated the z-value of the test: z-value = -2.661263. The corresponding p-value is: p-value = 0.003892, which is different from

On 28 June 2013 19:45, Chris Matthews <chris.matthews at apple.com> wrote: > Given this tradeoff I think we want to tend towards false positives (over > false negatives) strictly as a matter of compiler quality. > False hits are not binary, but (at least) two-dimensional. You can't say it's better to have any amount of false positives than any amount of false negatives

Hello; I was able to build and install llvm(3.0) under Ubuntu 11.10 (using the ./configure script found under llvm source, and then make and make install). While configuring, I gave --prefix as a directory where I would like llvm to be installed. I did not give --with-llvmgccdir and the --enable-optimized argument to configure. Because 3.0 doesn't come with llvmgcc source/binaries and I

We have some code that uses REXML, that when executed outside of Rails as a standalone rb file, runs fine. Once we run the code inside of Rails, it is dog slow. I know REXML is slow, buggy, sucks, etc., but my question is what cause the performance to degrade like that. Thanks. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

I should describe the cost of false negatives and false positives, since I think it matters for how this problem is approached. False negatives mean we miss a real regression --- we don’t want that. False positives mean somebody has to spend some time looking at and reproducing the regression when there is not one --- bad too. Given this tradeoff I think we want to tend towards false positives

Hi all, I am noticing a significant degradation in execution performance in loops with just one backedge than loops with two backedges. Unifying the backedges into one will also cause the slowdown. To replicate this problem, I used the C code in https://gist.github.com/sklam/11f11a410258ca191e6f263262a4ea65 and checked against clang-3.8 and clang-4.0 nightly. Depending on where I put the

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10552 Summary: Sender checksum calculation significantly slower with compression enabled Product: rsync Version: 3.1.1 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: core AssignedTo: wayned at

Here is a drop-in replacement for the R incomplete beta function. src/math/pbeta.c It is a slightly modified version of the cephes library one from Netlib. In the few cases I tried it seems to give at least 14 digit agreement with the one in S-PLUS (its hard to get more). I'm not sure what performance is like. I'd like to know if it helps with some of the problems which have been

I don’t think Apple disable assertion on the release build. I remember having clang and llvm crash because of assertion failure regularly at some point in the past. Nowadays, it is far more unusual to get a clang crash, so I can’t tell, but I doubt they change the configuration. > Le 20 nov. 2018 à 16:32, Jack Howarth via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> a écrit : > > The

Hello LLVM/Clang developers, We recently switched to use the same clang version on all our platforms. This included switching from apple-clang from xcode to a pre-built binary we downloaded from llvm.org. We noticed that this actually came with a pretty big performance regression in compile times. If we do the simplest test program like this: #include <string> #include <iostream>

Dear Sir or Madam? I am a doctor of urology,and I am engaged in developing a nomogram of bladder cancer. May I ask for your help on below issue? I set up a dataset which include 317 cases. I got the Binary Logistic Regression model by SPSS.And then I try to reconstruct the model ?lrm(RECU~Complication+T.Num+T.Grade+Year+TS)? by R-Project,and try to internal validate the model through