similar to: Matthias` suggestion for "test-suite" tests that are broken at "-Ofast" and are difficult to "repair"

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 8000 matches similar to: "Matthias` suggestion for "test-suite" tests that are broken at "-Ofast" and are difficult to "repair""

2016 Oct 12
2
Matthias` suggestion for "test-suite" tests that are broken at "-Ofast" and are difficult to "repair"
On 12 October 2016 at 17:09, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: >> I accept Matthias` proposal, and I propose that the above be used for >> wherever "really fixing" >> the FP problems with a test is beyond a reasonable effort+time level. >> This email is to check >> acceptance [or lack thereof] of the above. > > This makes sense to me. I
2016 Oct 12
3
[test-suite] making polybench/symm succeed with "-Ofast" and "-ffp-contract=on"
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
2016 Oct 14
2
[test-suite] making polybench/symm succeed with "-Ofast" and "-ffp-contract=on"
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
2016 Oct 14
3
[test-suite] making polybench/symm succeed with "-Ofast" and "-ffp-contract=on"
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>,
2016 Oct 08
2
[test-suite] making the test-suite succeed with "-Ofast" and "-ffp-contract=on"
----- 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
2016 Oct 12
3
[test-suite] making polybench/symm succeed with "-Ofast" and "-ffp-contract=on"
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
2016 Oct 08
3
[test-suite] making the test-suite succeed with "-Ofast" and "-ffp-contract=on"
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
2016 Oct 12
8
[test-suite] making polybench/symm succeed with "-Ofast" and "-ffp-contract=on"
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,
2016 Oct 10
2
[test-suite] making polybench/symm succeed with "-Ofast" and "-ffp-contract=on"
Hi, I would need some help to fix polybench/symm: void kernel_symm(int ni, int nj, DATA_TYPE alpha, DATA_TYPE beta, DATA_TYPE POLYBENCH_2D(C,NI,NJ,ni,nj), DATA_TYPE POLYBENCH_2D(A,NJ,NJ,nj,nj), DATA_TYPE POLYBENCH_2D(B,NI,NJ,ni,nj)) { int i, j, k; DATA_TYPE acc; /* C := alpha*A*B + beta*C, A is symetric */ for (i = 0; i < _PB_NI; i++) for (j = 0; j < _PB_NJ; j++) {
2016 Oct 08
3
[test-suite] making the test-suite succeed with "-Ofast" and "-ffp-contract=on"
> 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
2016 Oct 12
3
[test-suite] making polybench/symm succeed with "-Ofast" and "-ffp-contract=on"
----- 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
2016 Oct 11
3
[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
2016 Sep 09
3
defaults for FP contraction [e.g. fused multiply-add]: suggestion and patch to be slightly more aggressive and to make Clang`s optimization settings closer to having the same meaning as when they are given to GCC [at least for "-O3"]
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
2016 Oct 12
4
[test-suite] making polybench/symm succeed with "-Ofast" and "-ffp-contract=on"
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
2016 Sep 09
2
defaults for FP contraction [e.g. fused multiply-add]: suggestion and patch to be slightly more aggressive and to make Clang`s optimization settings closer to having the same meaning as when they are given to GCC [at least for "-O3"]
Dear all, In the process of investigating a performance difference between Clang & GCC when both compile the same non-toolchain program while using the "same"* compiler flags, I have found something that may be worth changing in Clang, developed a patch, and confirmed that the patch has its intended effect. *: "same" in quotes b/c the essence of the problem is that the
2016 Sep 29
2
[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
2016 Sep 29
2
[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
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,
2016 Oct 12
4
[test-suite] making polybench/symm succeed with "-Ofast" and "-ffp-contract=on"
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
2016 Sep 10
2
defaults for FP contraction [e.g. fused multiply-add]: suggestion and patch to be slightly more aggressive and to make Clang`s optimization settings closer to having the same meaning as when they are given to GCC [at least for "-O3"]
> 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, .
2016 Sep 29
3
[cfe-dev] a proposed script to help with test-suite programs that output _lots_ of FP numbers
----- 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