similar to: Using lnt to run SPEC tests: possible or not?

Summary ======= I'm planning on adjusting SimplifyCFG so that it doesn't turn two-entry phi nodes into selects until later in the pass pipeline, to give passes which can understand phis but not selects more opportunity to optimize. The thing I'm trying to do which made me think of doing this is described below, but from the benchmarking I've done it looks like this is overall a

I'm concerned that we're focusing on one side of this.  Let me point out a few concerns w/changing the canonical form here: 1. LICM does not know how to hoist or sink regions.  It does know how to hoist and sink selects. 2. InstCombine has limited support for triangles/diamonds, but fairly extensive support for selects. 3. EarlyCSE and GVN do not know how to eliminate fully

Hi Bill, The PPC LNT buildbot is randomly failing on LNT because of timeouts. http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-ppc64le-linux-lnt I've checked all recent LNT failures and they were spotted on some processes (lua, sqlite3, tramp3d, expandfft, etc), so I doubt this is in any was a real time out due to code-gen issues. I imagine they're all at the edge already and the standard

Hi, I'm trying to run the benchmark suite: http://llvm.org/docs/TestingGuide.html#test-suite-quickstart I'm doing it the lnt way, as described at: http://llvm.org/docs/lnt/quickstart.html I don't know what to expect but the results seems to be quite noisy and unstable. E.g I've done two runs on two different commits that only differ by a space in CODE_OWNERS.txt on my 12

On 28 Feb 2017, at 22:50, Michael Zolotukhin <mzolotukhin at apple.com<mailto:mzolotukhin at apple.com>> wrote: I also usually rerun suspiciously improved or regressed tests to verify the performance change. Most of the time, if it was just a noise, the test doesn’t appear on another run. I wish LNT (or any other script) could do that for me :) Michael Doesn't the lnt runtest nt

Two other things: 1) I get massively more stable execution times on 16.04 than on 14.04 on both x86 and ARM because 16.04 does far fewer gratuitous moves from one core to another, even without explicit pinning. 2) turn off ASLR: "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/randomize_va_space". As well as getting stable addresses for debugging repeatability, it also stabilizes execution time

I updated one of the powerpc64 lnt buildbot machines to a new OS release and the buildbot started failing every run when it tries to check out the test suite. The checkout will run for a while then always fails like this: /usr/bin/svn checkout --non-interactive --no-auth-cache --revision 323463 http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/test-suite/trunk at 323463 test/test-suite in dir

This just failed again: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-ppc64le-linux-multistage/builds/1579 Bill, could you take a look at this? This is like the 3rd time I've been incorrectly pinged by this buildbot due to this issue. -- Sean Silva On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 8:07 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for taking a look. The flaky ASan test failure in the

> On Aug 15, 2018, at 10:57 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On 08/15/2018 02:38 PM, Philip Reames via llvm-dev wrote: >> I'm concerned that we're focusing on one side of this. Let me point out a few concerns w/changing the canonical form here: >> >> LICM does not know how to hoist or sink regions. It does know

Hi, I'm trying to setup the test-suite and am getting short of running it... Following the steps here: http://llvm.org/docs/lnt/quickstart.html I got as far as getting lnt installed, but when I run the "lnt runtest nt" it fails: compilers.py:81: error: unable to determine compiler version: 'clang++': 'clang version 3.2 ' Seems my string doesn't have a

On 21 Apr 2016, at 17:44, Sergey Yakoushkin <sergey.yakoushkin at gmail.com<mailto:sergey.yakoushkin at gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Kristof, The way we use LNT, we would run different configuration (e.g. -O3 vs -Os) as different "machines" in LNT's model. O2/O3 is indeed bad example. We're also using different machines for Os/O3 - such parameters apply to all

> On Feb 27, 2017, at 1:36 AM, Kristof Beyls via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi Mikael, > > Some noisiness in benchmark results is expected, but the numbers you see seem to be higher than I'd expect. > A number of tricks people use to get lower noise results are (with the lnt runtest nt command line options to enable it between brackets): > *

I looked at this a bit a while back when you first asked but I didn't see anything obviously wrong. Benjamin, at least one of the referenced failures was on BE powerpc64. I don't remember if that one (http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-ppc64be-linux-lnt/builds/4883) failed on stage 1 or 2 and the results pages are no longer available. BTW, I tried testing the same revision many

Hi Since the buildbot host was updated to Fedora F20 levels, the clang buildbot has been failing with the following: $ /home/clangbuild/clang-ppc64-1/lnt.venv/bin/lnt runtest --verbose --submit http://llvm.org/perf/submitRun --commit=1 nt --sandbox nt --no-timestamp --cc /home/clangbuild/clang-ppc64-1/llvm.install.1/bin/clang --cxx /home/clangbuild/clang-ppc64-1/llvm.install.1/bin/clang++

On 22 Apr 2016, at 11:14, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com<mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>> wrote: On Apr 22, 2016, at 12:45 AM, Kristof Beyls via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: On 21 Apr 2016, at 17:44, Sergey Yakoushkin <sergey.yakoushkin at gmail.com<mailto:sergey.yakoushkin at gmail.com>> wrote: Hi

On CINT2006 ARM64/ref input/lto+pgo I practically measure no performance difference for the 7 benchmarks that compile. This includes bzip2 (although different source base than in CINT2000), mcf, hmmer, sjeng, h364ref, astar, xalancbmk On Sep 15, 2014, at 11:59 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Gerolf Hoflehner"

In lto+pgo some (5 out of 12 with usual suspect like perlbench and gcc among them using -flto -Wl,-mllvm,-use-cfl-aa -Wl,-mllvm,-use-cfl-aa-in-codegen) the CINT2006 benchmarks don’t compile. Has the implementation been tested with lto? If not, please stress the implementation more. Do we know reasons for gains? Where did you expect the biggest gains? Some of the losses will likely boil down to

Hi, I get the following failures when I run the test-suite on linux (Ubuntu 12.04) using LNT (lnt runtest nt ...): (all are execution failures) MultiSource/Applications/Burg MultiSource/Applications/ClamAV MultiSource/Applications/lemon MultiSource/Applications/obsequi MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/automotive-bitcount

I followed the lnt quickstart <http://llvm.org/docs/lnt/quickstart.html> directions but got this diagnostic when doing the setup: bash-3.2$ ~/mysandbox/bin/python ~/lnt/setup.py develop /Users/dcallahan/mysandbox/lib/python2.7/site-packages/setuptools/dist.py:284: UserWarning: The version spec\ ified requires normalization, consider using '0.4.1.dev0' instead of

From: Elena Lepilkina Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 2:33 PM To: 'James Molloy' <james at jamesmolloy.co.uk>; Kristof Beyls <Kristof.Beyls at arm.com>; Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> Cc: nd <nd at arm.com>; Matthias Braun <matze at braunis.de> Subject: RE: [llvm-dev] RFC: LNT/Test-suite support for custom metrics and test parameterization Hi everyone,