similar to: [LLVMdev] [FastPolly]: Update of Polly's performance on LLVM test-suite

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 =

At 2013-08-12 01:18:30,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >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. >

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, >>>> >>>>

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: >>    

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: >>>

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, >>>>>

Hi all, I have summarized the top 10 compiler passes for Polly when compiling LLVM test-ssuite. Results can be viewed on: https://gist.github.com/tanstar/581bcea1e4e03498f935/raw/f6a4ec4e8565f7a7bbdb924cd59fcf145caac039/Polly-top10 Based on the comparison between "clang -O3" and "polly -O3" listed on:

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 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: > https://gist.github.com/tanstar/581bcea1e4e03498f935/raw/f6a4ec4e8565f7a7bbdb924cd59fcf145caac039/Polly-top10 > > > Based on the comparison between "clang -O3" and "polly -O3"

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

Hi all, I have updated my GSoS proposal: "FastPolly: Reducing LLVM-Polly Compiling overhead" (https://gist.github.com/tanstar/5441808). I think the pass ordering problem you discussed early can be also investigated in this project! Is there any comment or advice about my proposal? I appreciate all your help and advice. Thanks, Star Tan Proposal:

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,

Hi Tobias, I am recently trying to set up the performance tester for FastPolly project. According to your suggestion, I plan to use the LNT infrastructure to set up the performance tester. For this purpose, I think I should do this job in three steps: First, I will add PolyBench to LLVM test-suite since PolyBench is the critical benchmarks for FastPolly. I have adjust the PolyBench-c-3.2 so we

On 06/06/2013 11:17 AM, Star Tan wrote: > Hi Tobias, > > > I am recently trying to set up the performance tester for FastPolly project. According to your suggestion, I plan to use the LNT infrastructure to set up the performance tester. For this purpose, I think I should do this job in three steps: > > > First, I will add PolyBench to LLVM test-suite since PolyBench is the

On 04/26/2013 05:08 AM, tanmx_star wrote: > Hi all, Hi, thanks for the update and sorry for the delay in reviewing. I just had a look at your proposal. > I have updated my GSoS proposal: "FastPolly: Reducing LLVM-Polly Compiling overhead" (https://gist.github.com/tanstar/5441808). I think the pass ordering problem you discussed early can be also investigated in this project!

Hi, I'm trying to run the benchmark suite: http://llvm.org/docs/TestingGuide.html#test-suite-quickstart I'm doing it the lnt way, as described at: http://llvm.org/docs/lnt/quickstart.html I don't know what to expect but the results seems to be quite noisy and unstable. E.g I've done two runs on two different commits that only differ by a space in CODE_OWNERS.txt on my 12

Hi all, I have investigated the compile-time overhead of "Polly Scop Detection" pass based on LNT testing results. This mail is to share some results I have found. (1) Analysis of "SCOP Detection Pass" for PolyBench (Attached file PolyBench_SCoPs.log) Experimental results show that the "SCOP Detection pass" does not lead to significant extra compile-time

Hi Daniel, I'm trying to add LivermoreLoops test to the benchmark suite (tar ball attached), but I'm getting the error below: --- Tested: 2 tests -- FAIL: SingleSource/Benchmarks/LivermoreLoops/lloops.compile_time (1 of 2) FAIL: SingleSource/Benchmarks/LivermoreLoops/lloops.execution_time (2 of 2) When I use the option to only run this test: --only-test