similar to: [test-suite] making polybench/symm succeed with "-Ofast" and "-ffp-contract=on"

On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 5:02 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Sebastian Pop" <sebpop.llvm at gmail.com> >> 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 Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 10:39 PM, Sebastian Pop <sebpop.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 10:20 PM, 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

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: >> polybench/linear-algebra/kernels/symm, FP_ABSTOLERANCE=1e1 >> polybench/linear-algebra/solvers/gramschmidt, FP_ABSTOLERANCE=1e0 >> What should be a good relative tolerance to set for these two tests? > > What's the minimum relative tolerance that you need for them to pass? Setting

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > I don't think that Clang/LLVM uses it by default on x86_64. If you're using -Ofast, however, that would explain it. I recommend looking at -O3 vs -O0 and make sure those are the same. -Ofast enables -ffast-math, which can legitimately cause differences. > The following tests pass at "-O3" and

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>,

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

----- 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>, "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, > "Matthias Braun" <matze at

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 12 October 2016 at 14:26, Sebastian Pop <sebpop.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > Correct me if I misunderstood: you would be ok changing the > reference output to exactly match the output of "-O0 -ffp-contract=off". No, that's not at all what I said. Matching identical outputs to FP tests makes no sense because there's *always* an error bar. The output of O0, O1, O2,

On 12 October 2016 at 05:35, Sebastian Pop <sebpop.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > polybench/linear-algebra/solvers/gramschmidt/ exposes the same problems as symm. > It does not match the reference output at -O0 -ffp-contract=off, > and it only passes all elements comparisons for FP_ABSTOLERANCE=1 for > "-Ofast" vs. "-O0 -ffp-contract=off". I think we're

On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 20 October 2016 at 16:05, Sebastian Pop <sebpop.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: >> Setting FP_ABSTOLERANCE=1e-5, the two tests are passing >> when compiled with -Ofast for the following relative tolerance: >> >> polybench/linear-algebra/kernels/symm, FP_TOLERANCE=1e-10 >>

It would help if you sent the IR you're giving to opt or at least a complete C function and your clang command line. ~Craig On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 3:05 PM, hameeza ahmed <hahmed2305 at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I m unable to vectorize following kernel by opt tool; > > for (i = 0; i < _PB_NI; i++) > for (j = 0; j < _PB_NJ; j++) > { >

Hello, I m unable to vectorize following kernel by opt tool; for (i = 0; i < _PB_NI; i++) for (j = 0; j < _PB_NJ; j++) { tmp[i][j] = 0; for (k = 0; k < _PB_NK; ++k) tmp[i][j] += alpha * A[i][k] * B[k][j]; } for (i = 0; i < _PB_NI; i++) for (j = 0; j < _PB_NL; j++) { D[i][j] *= beta; for (k = 0; k < _PB_NJ; ++k) D[i][j] +=

On 12 October 2016 at 13:04, Sebastian Pop <sebpop.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > The other problem is the reference output does not match > at "-O0 -ffp-contract=off". It might be that the reference output was recorded > at "-O3 -ffp-contract=off". I think that this hides either a compiler > bug or a test bug. Ah, yes! You mentioned before and I forgot to

On 12 October 2016 at 15:05, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > This is something we need to understand. No, there's not always an error bar. With FMA formation and without non-IEEE-compliant optimizations (i.e. fast-math), the optimized answer should be identical to the non-optimized answer. What about architectures that this is never respected, like Darwin? In the general

> 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

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

Hi all, I've started looking at the GlobalMerge pass, enabled by default on ARM and AArch64. I think we should reconsider that, at least for AArch64. As is, the pass just merges all globals together, in groups of 4KB (AArch64, 128B on ARM). At the time it was enabled, the general thinking was "it's almost free, it doesn't affect performance much, we might as well use it".

Hi all, I'm attempting to convert all the pointers to arrays the mdct_backward function so it can be partitioned off for a hardware implementation. Although this code is quite short I'm finding it a little tricky. As it stands, mdct_backward is passed values by reference i.e. void mdct_backward(mdct_lookup *init, DATA_TYPE *in, DATA_TYPE *out) o my modified version starts void

Hi all, PolyBench (http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~pouchet/software/polybench/) is a well-known benchmark for polyhedral compiler. Since LLVM-Polly http://polly.llvm.org/) has provided a very good polyhedral optimizer for LLVM, could we add this benchmark to LLVM test-suite? I have attached the patch file to add PolyBench to LLVM test-suite. Best wishes, Star Tan -------------- next part