similar to: a proposed script to help with test-suite programs that output _lots_ of FP numbers

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sebastian Pop via cfe-dev" <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "Renato Golin" <renato.golin at linaro.org> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Sebastian Paul Pop" <s.pop at samsung.com>, "Abe Skolnik" > <a.skolnik at samsung.com>, "cfe-dev"

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sebastian Pop" <sebpop.llvm at gmail.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Sebastian Paul Pop" <s.pop at samsung.com>, "Abe Skolnik" > <a.skolnik at samsung.com>, "cfe-dev" <cfe-dev at

> On Oct 7, 2016, at 5:56 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Sebastian Pop" <sebpop.llvm at gmail.com <mailto:sebpop.llvm at gmail.com>> >> To: "Renato Golin" <renato.golin at linaro.org <mailto:renato.golin at linaro.org>> >> Cc: "Kristof

On 29 September 2016 at 19:21, Sebastian Pop <sebpop.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > Cumulating errors is a bad idea. > As others have suggested, please prepare a patch that disables > fp-contract on those testcases. No, please, let's not disable things just because they fail. If the test is not meaningful or if the results are not good, let's just change the test in a

Hi, I would like to provide a summary of the different proposals on how to fix the test-suite to make it succeed when specifying extra CFLAGS "-Ofast" and "-ffp-contract=on". I would like to expose the issue and proposed ways to fix it to other potential reviewers that could provide extra feedback. We also need to decide which proposal (or combination of) to implement and

Hey folks, Some progress has been made since the first thread: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-March/111129.html And also I think the consensus is to enable "-ffp-contract=on" by default (instead of "fast"), which seems to be working on some preliminary tests I made. I just ran the test-suite on x86_64 and AArch64. The former is ok, the latter still has some

Hi, Below you can see the updated benchmark results for the new SLP-vectorizer. As you can see, there is a small number of compile time regressions, a single major runtime *regression, and many performance gains. There is a tiny increase in code size: 30k for the whole test-suite. Based on the numbers below I would like to enable the SLP-vectorizer by default for -O3. Please let me know if you

On 09/09/2016 04:31 PM, Stephen Canon wrote: > Gating this on -Owhatever is dangerous, . We should simply default to the pragma “on” state universally. Why so? [honestly asking, not arguing] My guess: b/c we don`t want programs to give different results when compiled at different "-O<...>" settings with the exception of "-Ofast". At any rate, the above change is

Hi, LLVM’s SLP-vectorizer is a new pass that combines similar independent instructions in a straight-line code. It is currently not enabled by default, and people who want to experiment with it can use the clang command line flag “-fslp-vectorize”. I ran LLVM’s test suite with and without the SLP vectorizer on a Sandybridge mac (using SSE4, w/o AVX). Based on my performance measurements

Dear all, I would like some help, please, with implementing Hal`s excellent suggestion, which I have reworded as below. Hal has confirmed a previous version of my rewording as a correct interpretation. [I made minor changes since then, e.g. for grammar.] [Abe wrote:] >> I think you [Hal] are suggesting something like this: >> 1) compile the program with FP fusion off,

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Matthias Braun via cfe-dev" <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "Abe Skolnik" <a.skolnik at samsung.com> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "cfe-dev" <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 6:20:09 PM > Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] improving

> On Sep 9, 2016, at 3:27 PM, Steve Canon via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Sep 9, 2016, at 6:21 PM, Abe Skolnik <a.skolnik at samsung.com <mailto:a.skolnik at samsung.com>> wrote: > >> On 09/09/2016 04:31 PM, Stephen Canon wrote: >> >>> Gating this on -Owhatever is dangerous, .

Renato, I see that you were not on CC to the following email thread. I would appreciate if you could provide some guidance on how to fix the test-suite. On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Sebastian Pop <sebpop at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 5:59 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: >> So, let's separate the FP_CONTRACT from the FAST_MATH

Sorry for not posting sooner. I forgot to send an update with the results. I also have some benchmark data. It confirms much of what you posted -- binary size increase is essentially 0, performance increases across the board. It looks really good to me. However, there was one crash that I'd like to check if it still fires. Will update later today (feel free to ping me if you don't hear

On Jul 13, 2013, at 11:30 PM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote: > Hi, > > LLVM’s SLP-vectorizer is a new pass that combines similar independent instructions in a straight-line code. It is currently not enabled by default, and people who want to experiment with it can use the clang command line flag “-fslp-vectorize”. I ran LLVM’s test suite with and without the SLP

On Jul 14, 2013, at 9:52 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jul 13, 2013, at 11:30 PM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> LLVM’s SLP-vectorizer is a new pass that combines similar independent instructions in a straight-line code. It is currently not enabled by default, and people who want to experiment with it

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Renato Golin" <renato.golin at linaro.org> >> To: "Sebastian Pop" <sebpop.llvm at gmail.com> >> Cc: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "Sebastian Paul Pop" <s.pop at samsung.com>,

Hi, Sorry for the delay in response. I measured the code size change and noticed small changes in both directions for individual programs. I found a 30k binary size growth for the entire testsuite + SPEC. I attached an updated performance report that includes both compile time and performance measurements. Thanks, Nadav On Jul 14, 2013, at 10:55 PM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com>

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Hal Finkel via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "Sebastian Pop" <sebpop.llvm at gmail.com> > Cc: "Sebastian Paul Pop" <s.pop at samsung.com>, "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Matthias Braun" > <matze at braunis.de>, "Clang Dev" <cfe-dev

Cool! What changes have you seen to generated code size? I'll take it for a spin on our benchmarks. On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 11:30 PM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote: > Hi, > > LLVM’s SLP-vectorizer is a new pass that combines similar independent > instructions in a straight-line code. It is currently not enabled by > default, and people who want to