similar to: [LLVMdev] [RFC] Performance tracking and benchmarking infrastructure BoF

Hi, This is a summary of what was discussed at the Performance Tracking and Benchmarking Infrastructure BoF session last week at the LLVM dev meeting. At the same time it contains a proposal on a few next steps to improve the setup and use of buildbots to track performance changes in code generated by LLVM. The buildbots currently are very valuable in detecting correctness

Great summary Kristof ! I do not know how frequent is the addition of a new benchmark, but this would disrupt the compile time measurement. On the other hand, we just want to see a (hopefully negative) slope and ignore steps due to new benchmark being added. Cheers, -- Arnaud On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Kristof Beyls <kristof.beyls at arm.com>wrote: > Hi, > > > >

On 2 August 2014 00:40, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > If memory serves me well (it doesn't), these are the list of things we > agreed on making, and their progress: > > 1. Performance-specific test-suite: a group of specific benchmarks > that should be tracked with the LNT infrastructure. Hal proposed to > look at this, but other people helped

Hello everyone, I am co-hosting a BoF at next week's LLVM Dev Meeting to discuss enhancements to floating point support that will enable non-default rounding and FP exception modes. I've just uploaded a set of slides that provides details about the topics I hope to cover. You can find it here (look for the link just below the speaker profiles): http://sched.co/8Yzr I hope the BoF will

On 20 August 2014 00:24, Gerolf Hoflehner <ghoflehner at apple.com> wrote: > My experience from leading BOFs at other conferences is more talk than action. So I suggest a different setup for this topic: how about having a working group meeting with participants who can commit time to work on this topic? Mine too, but in this case I have to say it wasn't at all what happened. It

We are looking for a volunteer to lead a Testing BoF at next month's LLVM Dev Meeting. Testing was a popular topic in the responses to the LLVM Dev Meeting registration questionnaire. It also seems to be a recent theme on LLVMdev. A Testing BoF should seek to better describe the issues, identify any interest or actual work in addressing the issues, and foster potential collaboration.

I can do this, if nobody has volunteered yet. Cheers, Andrei On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Kipping, David <dkipping at qualcomm.com> wrote: > We are looking for a volunteer to lead a Testing BoF at next month's LLVM > Dev Meeting. Testing was a popular topic in the responses to the LLVM Dev > Meeting registration questionnaire. It also seems to be a recent theme on >

Folks, Next Thursday evening (20 July) we''ll be holding a "Xen Users BOF" at the Ottawa Linux Symposium. >From the BOF description: "The Xen Users'' BOF will provide an interactive forum for users to talk about their experiences with Xen and highlight some of the cool configurations they have created with it. This will also be an opportunity for newcomers to

Folks, Next Thursday evening (20 July) we''ll be holding a "Xen Users BOF" at the Ottawa Linux Symposium. >From the BOF description: "The Xen Users'' BOF will provide an interactive forum for users to talk about their experiences with Xen and highlight some of the cool configurations they have created with it. This will also be an opportunity for newcomers to

All, I'm curious to know if anyone is interested in tracking performance (compile-time and/or execution-time) from a community perspective? This is a much loftier goal then just supporting build bots. If so, I'd be happy to propose a BOF at the upcoming Dev Meeting. Chad

Hi folks, here's a press release (yes, sorry, sorry) regarding what's going on with Xiph at the current IETF meeting. Every time we're asked 'why haven't you standardized any of your codecs through the IETF?' we explain that we've been trying for coming up on ten years. This release is about the latest step. If we (along with the other companies supporting

Hi folks, here's a press release (yes, sorry, sorry) regarding what's going on with Xiph at the current IETF meeting. Every time we're asked 'why haven't you standardized any of your codecs through the IETF?' we explain that we've been trying for coming up on ten years. This release is about the latest step. If we (along with the other companies supporting

Dear community, We are trying to setup a BoF ( Raising Next Generation of LLVM Developers, http://sched.co/8Yzs). In our academic-oriented environments the main work force is students: undergrads, grads or PhD (rarely postdocs). Often we have limited time to bring somebody up to speed and we have to it in a productive and motivating for both parties way. I believe most of you had

Hi, We are going to have a BoF session on vectorization on Nov 8th. Everybody is invited! Most of the BoF is going to be an open discussion, but Hal and I are also going to talk a little bit about the Loop vectorizer, the BB vectorizer and the common infrastructure. Here is a preliminary agenda for the BoF: 1. A quick overview on vectorization in LLVM - 3 min. 2. Loop vectorizer design

Dear Michael & Hal, We had a submission to SC13 on beating OpenACC compilers with LLVM+Polly+NVPTX [1]. Unfortunately, reviewers somehow expected we want to go into polyhedral tools intercomparison, which was absolutely not our goal. The goal was exactly to bring a competitive HPC/GPU toolchain for end users. Only NV works for now, MIC is in progress. If you think this contribution is worth a

Folks, Is there any interest in having a BoF session on the GCC+LLVM collaboration? I'd like to discuss some of the outcomes from the GNU Cauldron session and see what we could do to make that relationship healthier. So far, all the cross discussions I've seen on the GNU list (about LLVM) have been very healthy and the GNU folks seem very receptive to discussion (not so much for

Hello debug-info fans, There has been a lot of activity in the debug-info area lately, and I was wondering if there's interest in a BoF session this April. Alternatively we could just have a hacker-lab table again, which worked out pretty well at the last US meeting. Some potential discussion topics for the BoF/table could be: * Improving debugging of optimized code ** Defining what -Og

Dear all, please find below the meeting notes form the Polly BoF (as taken by Michael Kruse). Comments and feedback is very much appreciated. Best, Tobias Status update * Polly late in pipeline * Uses TargetTransformInfo * Part of the release process * isl: C++ interface, MIT licenced, improved scheduler * Polly integration plan; result: isl and Polly available in each build * Better

On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Nadav Rotem" <nrotem at apple.com> >> To: "David Tweed" <david.tweed at gmail.com> >> Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu >> Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2012 11:08:23 AM >> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Regarding BOF: Vectorization in

My proposal for a BOF session at ETech was accepted! Any Rails-folk in attendance on Tuesday are encouraged to come to Elizabeth Ballroom A between 8:30-930pm. http://conferences.oreillynet.com/cs/et2006/view/e_sess/9113 The goal for the session is to discuss how we can empower ourselves to return to our local peer communities and advocate Rails as the web development technology people