similar to: Regression in SPEC2006/gcc caused by LoopLoadElimination

> On Mar 7, 2016, at 9:43 AM, Adam Nemet <anemet at apple.com> wrote: > > Hi Haicheng, > > Sorry about the breakage. I reverted it in r262839. > > I will try to reproduce it locally. Please don’t blow away your directories yet in case I need further help. OK, I managed to reproduce this locally. Should be able to make progress from here without further help from

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:17 AM, Adam Nemet <anemet at apple.com> wrote: > I’ve committed the fix in r263058. Haicheng, Eric/Benjamin, can you guys > please give it a test with your codebase. (You need to enable the pass with > -mllvm -enable-loop-load-elim.) The miscompilation I was seeing is gone now, too. Thanks! > On Mar 7, 2016, at 11:05 PM, Adam Nemet <anemet at

Thank you, Adam. It passes all the benchmarks I have. Haicheng From: anemet at apple.com [mailto:anemet at apple.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2016 7:17 PM To: Haicheng Wu; Eric Christopher; Benjamin Kramer Cc: llvm-dev Subject: Re: Regression in SPEC2006/gcc caused by LoopLoadElimination I’ve committed the fix in r263058. Haicheng, Eric/Benjamin, can you guys please give it a

Hi, Continuing recent efforts in understanding compile time slowdowns, I looked at some historical data: I picked one test and tried to pin-point commits that affected its compile-time. The data I have is not 100% accurate, but hopefully it helps to provide an overview of what's going on with compile time in LLVM and give a better understanding of what changes usually impact compile time.

On 1/18/17 3:55 PM, Davide Italiano via llvm-dev wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 6:02 PM, Mikhail Zolotukhin > <mzolotukhin at apple.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Continuing recent efforts in understanding compile time slowdowns, I looked at some historical data: I picked one test and tried to pin-point commits that affected its compile-time. The data I have is not 100%

Ah but how did you compile the clang-4.0 you were using? Does it run faster if you compile it with clang-4.0? :) On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 4:09 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi, > > On this topic, I just tried to build ToT with clang-3.9.1 and clang-4.0 > and the total time to complete `ninja clang` on this machine went from > 12m54s to

Hi Sanjay, I observed some extra register spills when applying the reassociation pass on spec2006 benchmarks and I would like to listen to your advice. For example, function get_new_point_on_quad() of tria_boundary.cc in spec2006/dealII has a sequences of code like this . X=a+b . Y=X+c . Z=Y+d . There are many other instructions between these float adds. The reassociation

Moving this discussion here from the review thread. RIght now, we have a few passes that prefix DEBUG message with various things, so folks using -debug can tell where the debug message came from. But this is not consistent, and in fact, most passes don't do it. Worse, the prefixes used do not often match the DEBUG_TYPE of the pass. It would be nice to fix this, and just have the DEBUG

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Matthias Braun via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin.org> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Monday, November 2, 2015 1:16:18 PM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Prefixing DEBUG messages with DEBUG_TYPE (was re: [PATCH] D13259: LLE 6/6: Add

This conflict is with many optimizations incl. copy prop, coalescing, hoisting etc. Each could increase register pressure and with similar impact. Attempts to control the register pressure locally (within an optimization pass) tend to get hard to tune and maintain. Would it be a better way to describe eg in metadata how to undo an optimization? Optimizations that attempt to reduce pressure like

Hi everyone, The code layout that TailMerging (inside BranchFolding) works on is not the final layout optimized based on the branch probability. Generally, after BlockPlacement, many new merging opportunities emerge. I did an experiment of adding additional BranchFolding and BlockPlacement after the existing BlockPlacement (i.e., -block-placement -branch-folder -block-placement) targeting

All, We met several system failures on different hardware platforms, which are all caused by VT-d fault. err 1: disk is corrupted by VT-d fault on SATA. err 2: Dom0 kernel panics at booting, which is caused VT-d fault on UHCI. err 3, Dom0 complains disk errors while creating HVM guests. The culprit would be changeset 19054 "x86_64: Remove statically-partitioned Xen heap.". Detailed

I'd missed the fact that j wasn't just being decremented. This isn't as easy as I said. Philip On 03/03/2016 02:36 PM, Philip Reames via llvm-dev wrote: > SCEV should be able to easily prove that j is positive here. I'm not > sure where the right place to use that information would be in this > case. Sanjoy, can you comment? > > Philip > > On 03/03/2016

Hi, On 02/10/2016 01:23 AM, haicheng at codeaurora.org wrote: > Thank you, Mikael. I can reproduce what you saw and am looking into it. Great! > Just curious, why do you run loop-deletion before licm and loop-idiom? As part of our internal testing we use Csmith to generate C-programs and then we run the compiler with random generated compiler flags on that input. This bug was

Hi Quentin, After shrink-wrapping was enabled as default on AArch64, llc has a seg fault when compiling the attached .ll file on AArch64. My command is llc -mcpu=cortex-a57 bug.ll Best, Haicheng -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: bug.ll Type: application/octet-stream Size: 8983 bytes Desc: not available URL:

Hi Arnaud, Thanks for following up with that and sorry for the breakage. Couple of comments: MachineLoopInfo *MLI; + RegScavenger *RS; Would it make sense to use a unique_ptr here? That should eliminate the need of having explicit deletes. +; RUN: llc -mtriple=aarch64-linux-gnu -o - %s Add -enable-shrink-wrap=true and a second RUN line with -enable-shrink-wrap=false. Then add check lines

Hi all, This is today''s nightly testing report; no new issue found, bug #1259 got fixed. Some vt-d cases failed in first round testing, but can get pass in retesting. Fixed issue: ============================================== 1. booting windows guest causes Xen HV crash http://bugzilla.xensource.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1259 Old issues:

Hi Reza, -O4 is the highest level of LLVM optimization that I know of. But, I don't know if it has been tried on Spec2006. IIRC, Dan Gohman has run Spec. tests with LLVM, so he can provide more info. - fariborz On Jul 19, 2010, at 6:06 PM, Reza Yazdani wrote: > Hi, > > What are the best options to compile Spec2006 with LLVM compilers to > get the best performance numbers

Hi Haicheng, Originally I ran into this on our out-of-tree target but I managed to reproduce the crash on X86 as well now: build-all/bin/opt -S -sroa -loop-rotate -loop-deletion -licm -loop-idiom ../llvm/bugpoint-reduced-simplified.i8+.ll gives: While deleting: void % An asserting value handle still pointed to this value! UNREACHABLE executed at ../lib/IR/Value.cpp:696! 0 opt

Hi, What are the best options to compile Spec2006 with LLVM compilers to get the best performance numbers on x86? Has anybody compared LLVM Spec2006 numbers with GCC 4.5 base? reza -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100719/40cf38a5/attachment.html>