similar to: [cfe-dev] improving test-suite`s FP subtests to be able to compare both exact-match outputs and more-optimized builds that may have different outputs due to FP optimizations

----- 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

----- 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

Dear all, As part of working on making test-suite less demanding of exact FP results so my FP-contraction patch can go back into trunk and stay there, today I analyzed "MultiSource/Benchmarks/VersaBench/beamformer". I found that the raw output from that program is 2789780 bytes [i.e. ~2.7 _megabytes_] of floating-point text, which IMO is too much to put into a patch -- or at least

----- 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"

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

----- 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

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, 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

> 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, .

On 14 October 2016 at 15:50, Sebastian Pop <sebpop.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > These 3 tests are passing with the following configurations: > -O3 -ffp-contract=off > -O3 -ffp-contract=on > -O0 -ffp-contract=off > -O0 -ffp-contract=on > > They are not passing at: > -Ofast -ffp-contract=on > -Ofast -ffp-contract=off Let's separate completely FP-contract and

> 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 Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Renato Golin" <renato.golin at linaro.org> >> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> >> Cc: "Sebastian Paul Pop" <s.pop at samsung.com>, "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Matthias

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

Dear all, Today I had an idea that might satisfy all the needs for improvement we currently have "on the plate" WRT the repo.-wise sizes of reference outputs and the issues surrounding FP optimizations and how to allow them while still allowing test programs in "test-suite" the output[s] of which depend upon FP computations [and for which relatively-small changes in FP

Dear all, The below has been tested quite thoroughly by now, including performance-testing by the way of using a modified compiler that triggers the below while compiling at least an old part of LLVM ["Function.cpp"] and sorting a symbol table with >7000 global variables. Unfortunately, the optimization I have been working on for which I _thought_ I needed the ability to sort a

Dear all, Howdy! ;-) This is Abe of the Samsung Austin R&D Center`s compilers team. As an early part of a project that should help performance on some CPUs, I would like to cause global variables [at least from C and C++ programs] to be grouped together according to their alignment needs, which should help to slightly reduce RAM requirements in some cases. IMO this should be done at

On 08/04/2016 01:33 PM, David Majnemer wrote: > You should never be copying or moving around Values. Why not? Is that because of this thing you also wrote in the same message: "use lists are allocated before the object"? > An llvm::Value (which GlobalVariable is a subtype of) should exist only in the heap. Trying to sort a container of such objects doesn`t require me to

>> My question this time is this: is re-ordering globals at the LLVM level both possible [...] On 07/25/2016 10:53 PM, Mehdi Amini wrote: > Isn’t something a linker could/should do? AFAIK & TTBOMK, a compiler should do it [if allowed by the language] and a linker should not mess it up. I don`t know that a linker is allowed to make assumptions about code not traversing labels in

On Sep 10, 2016, at 3:33 AM, Steve Canon <scanon at apple.com> wrote: >>> >>> Pretty much. In particular, imagine a user trying to debug an unexpected floating point result caused by conversion of a*b + c into fma(a, b, c). >> >> I think that’s unavoidable, because of the way the optimization levels work. Even fma contraction is on by default (something I’d

> On Jul 25, 2016, at 20:53, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > Isn’t something a linker could/should do? We have a problem where some globals are lowered to an immediate address in the DAG. It would be nice if we had some fixed order for the globals before then. Right now the total allocated size at the end depends on the use order, block by