similar to: [LLVMdev] [Polly] Comionpile-time of Polly's code generation

On 09/01/2013 08:02 PM, Star Tan wrote: > Hi all, > > > It seems that Polly's code generation can leads to high compile-time overhead, especially for PolyBench applications such as 2mm, 3mm, gemm, syrk, etc. Some basic evaluation and analysis for Polly's code generation can be referred to http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=16898. > > > Currently, we can choose to

At 2013-09-02 17:05:52,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >On 09/01/2013 08:02 PM, Star Tan wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> >> It seems that Polly's code generation can leads to high compile-time overhead, especially for PolyBench applications such as 2mm, 3mm, gemm, syrk, etc. Some basic evaluation and analysis for Polly's code generation

On 09/08/2013 11:46 AM, Star Tan wrote: > At 2013-09-02 17:05:52,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: > >> On 09/01/2013 08:02 PM, Star Tan wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> >>> It seems that Polly's code generation can leads to high compile-time overhead, especially for PolyBench applications such as 2mm, 3mm, gemm, syrk, etc.

At 2013-09-09 05:02:14,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >On 09/08/2013 11:46 AM, Star Tan wrote: >> At 2013-09-02 17:05:52,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >> >>> On 09/01/2013 08:02 PM, Star Tan wrote: >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> >>>> It seems that Polly's code

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. >

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 =

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

Dear Tobias, Thank you very much for your very helpful advice. Yes, -debug-pass and -time-passes are two very useful and powerful options when evaluating the compile-time of each compiler pass. They are exactly what I need! With these options, I can step into details of the compile-time overhead of each pass. I have finished some preliminary testing based on two randomly selected files from

On 04/30/2013 04:13 PM, Star Tan wrote: > Hi all, [...] > How could I find out where the time is spent on between two adjacent Polly passes? Can anyone give me some advice? Hi Star Tan, I propose to do the performance analysis using the 'opt' tool and optimizing LLVM-IR, instead of running it from within clang. For the 'opt' tool there are two commands that should help

On 05/03/2013 11:39 AM, Star Tan wrote: > Dear Tobias, > > > Thank you very much for your very helpful advice. > > > Yes, -debug-pass and -time-passes are two very useful and powerful > options when evaluating the compile-time of each compiler pass. They > are exactly what I need! With these options, I can step into details > of the compile-time overhead of each pass.

Hello all, The performance comparison between Polly's Cloog and ISL code generator is posted on http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/59?compare_to=58&baseline=58 It seems their execution-time performance are comparable: Performance Regressions - Execution Time  (ISL over Cloog) MultiSource/Benchmarks/TSVC/ControlFlow-flt/ControlFlow-flt 8.49%

Hi Tobi, Sebastian Pop wrote: > Another option is to disable these tests when cloog is not available, and to > write other tests that will work with -polly-codegen-isl. I think I like this way better. The attached patches move all the test dependent on Cloog to be conditionally executed to CLOOG_FOUND. I am preparing another patch that will adapt most of the current tests to work with

On Wed, Jan 17, 2018, at 07:22, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev wrote: > > On Jan 15, 2018, at 8:52 AM, Michael Kruse via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > As for the main motivation on why to import the entire source of isl at all: > > Polly interacts relative tightly with isl which provide the main > > optimization algorithms. For instance, Polly's

On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:07:18PM +0100, Tobias Grosser wrote: > On 11/19/2013 08:50 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: >> Tobias, >> Can we add something like the following to polly 3.4? >> >> Index: CMakeLists.txt >> =================================================================== >> --- CMakeLists.txt (revision 195142) >> +++ CMakeLists.txt (working

On 10/21/2012 03:46 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: > On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 02:31:50PM -0700, Tobias Grosser wrote: >> On 10/21/2012 12:47 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: >>> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 11:58:43AM -0700, Tobias Grosser wrote: >>> ... >>>> Does attached patch work for you? >>>> >>>> Tobi >>>> >>> >>> Tobi,

Hi Tobi, Sebastian Pop wrote: > Sebastian Pop wrote: > > Another option is to disable these tests when cloog is not available, and to > > write other tests that will work with -polly-codegen-isl. > > I think I like this way better. The attached patches move all the test > dependent on Cloog to be conditionally executed to CLOOG_FOUND. I am preparing > another patch

Hi Tobi, when polly is configured with isl and without cloog, make polly-test does not pass cleanly as there are several testcases that use a pass flag that does not exist in this configuration: -polly-cloog. I was thinking to address this problem by renaming -polly-cloog and -polly-codegen-isl to -polly-codegen and making all these tests using -polly-codegen. Another option is to disable these

Tobi, What is the situation with -polly-codegen-isl in polly svn? Should we be testing polly without cloog as the default configuration or will cloog use not be deprecated in 3.3? Jack

The attached patch eliminates http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=15817 by removing the remaining "; XFAIL:*" added in http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20130415/171812.html. The Isl/CodeGen/scevcodegen-1.ll testcase in polly appears as an XPASS in current llvm/polly 3.3 and trunk svn for both x86_64-apple-darwin* and x86_64 Fedora 15 when built against isl

On 11/20/2013 04:50 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:07:18PM +0100, Tobias Grosser wrote: >> On 11/19/2013 08:50 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: >>> Tobias, >>> Can we add something like the following to polly 3.4? >>> >>> Index: CMakeLists.txt >>> ===================================================================