similar to: [LLVMdev] [Polly] Compile-time and Execution-time analysis for the SCEV canonicalization

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

At 2013-09-09 05:52:35,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >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. > >>

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

At 2013-09-09 13:07:07,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >On 09/09/2013 05:18 AM, Star Tan wrote: >> >> At 2013-09-09 05:52:35,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >> >>> On 09/08/2013 08:03 PM, Star Tan wrote: >>> Also, I wonder if your runs include the dependence analysis. If this is >>> the

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

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

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

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 2013-08-01 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 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

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 2013-08-09 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 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: >>>

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: >>    

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 09/09/2013 05:18 AM, Star Tan wrote: > > At 2013-09-09 05:52:35,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: > >> On 09/08/2013 08:03 PM, Star Tan wrote: >> Also, I wonder if your runs include the dependence analysis. If this is >> the case, the numbers are very good. Otherwise, 30% overhead seems still >> to be a little bit much. > I think

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:

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"