Displaying 20 results from an estimated 5000 matches similar to: "LLVM compile-time regression tracking?"
2013 Jul 30
3
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Update of Polly compile-time performance on LLVM test-suite
Hi Tobias and all Polly developers,
I have re-evaluated the Polly compile-time performance using newest LLVM/Polly source code. You can view the results on http://188.40.87.11:8000.
Especially, I also evaluated our r187102 patch file that avoids expensive failure string operations in normal execution. Specifically, I evaluated two cases for it:
Polly-NoCodeGen: clang -O3 -load
2019 Feb 01
6
Status of the function merging pass?
Hi Nikita,
Glad to hear that Rust code can benefit a lot from this.
I have put patches to enable merge-similar functions with thinLTO.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D52896 etc.
<https://reviews.llvm.org/D52896>
This is more powerful than existing merge-functions pass and all we need to do is port these patches to trunk llvm. I'd be happy to help with this effort.
-Aditya
2013 Jul 31
0
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Update of Polly compile-time performance on LLVM test-suite
On 07/30/2013 10:03 AM, Star Tan wrote:
> Hi Tobias and all Polly developers,
>
> I have re-evaluated the Polly compile-time performance using newest
> LLVM/Polly source code. You can view the results on
> http://188.40.87.11:8000
> <http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/16?compare_to=9&baseline=9&aggregation_fn=median>.
>
> Especially, I also evaluated
2013 Aug 01
4
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Update of Polly compile-time performance on LLVM test-suite
At 2013-07-31 22:50:57,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote:
>On 07/30/2013 10:03 AM, Star Tan wrote:
>> Hi Tobias and all Polly developers,
>>
>> I have re-evaluated the Polly compile-time performance using newest
>> LLVM/Polly source code. You can view the results on
>> http://188.40.87.11:8000
>>
2013 Aug 01
0
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Update of Polly compile-time performance on LLVM test-suite
On 07/31/2013 09:23 PM, Star Tan wrote:
> At 2013-07-31 22:50:57,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es
> <mailto:tobias at grosser.es>> wrote:
>
>>On 07/30/2013 10:03 AM, Star Tan wrote:
>>> Hi Tobias and all Polly developers,
>>>
>>> I have re-evaluated the Polly compile-time performance using newest
>>> LLVM/Polly source
2018 Nov 05
5
Safe fptoui/fptosi casts
I would be interested in learning what the set of used semantics for
float-to-int conversion is. If the only two used are 1) undefined behavior
if unrepresentable and 2) saturate to int_{min,max} with NaN going to zero,
then I think it makes sense to expose both of those natively in the IR. If
the set is much larger, I think separate intrinsics for each behavior would
make sense. It would be nice
2018 Nov 05
3
Safe fptoui/fptosi casts
Hi everyone!
The fptoui/fptosi instructions are currently specified to return a poison
value if the rounded-towards-zero floating point number cannot be
represented by the target integer type. The motivation for this behavior is
that overflowing float to int casts in C are undefined behavior.
However, many newer languages prefer to have a float to integer cast that
is well-defined for all input
2012 Jun 20
2
[LLVMdev] Exception handling slowdown?
Did something change with exception handling recently? A bunch of lit bots are
showing slower compile times for many tests.
Ciao, Duncan.
On 20/06/12 07:53, llvm-testresults at cs.uiuc.edu wrote:
>
> lab-mini-03__O0-g__clang_DEV__x86_64 test results
> <http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/1283?compare_to=1278&baseline=999>
>
> Run Order Start Time Duration
>
2012 Jun 25
0
[LLVMdev] Exception handling slowdown?
Nothing that I'm aware of has changed with EH. Is it possible to bisect the problem?
-bw
On Jun 20, 2012, at 12:38 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote:
> Did something change with exception handling recently? A bunch of lit bots are
> showing slower compile times for many tests.
>
> Ciao, Duncan.
>
> On 20/06/12 07:53, llvm-testresults at cs.uiuc.edu
2012 Jul 05
2
[LLVMdev] Exception handling slowdown?
Hi Bill,
> Nothing that I'm aware of has changed with EH. Is it possible to bisect the problem?
I don't see any relevant LLVM changes, so I guess clang C++ compilation slowed
down due to some clang changes. I'm not going to investigate this.
Ciao, Duncan.
>
> -bw
>
> On Jun 20, 2012, at 12:38 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote:
>
>> Did
2011 Dec 01
1
[LLVMdev] [llvm-testresults] bwilson__llvm-gcc_PROD__i386 nightly tester results
Are these 225 compile time regressions real? It sure looks bad!
Ciao, Duncan.
On 01/12/11 09:39, llvm-testresults at cs.uiuc.edu wrote:
>
> bwilson__llvm-gcc_PROD__i386 nightly tester results
>
> URL http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/simple/nts/380/
> Nickname bwilson__llvm-gcc_PROD__i386:4
> Name curlew.apple.com
>
> Run ID Order Start Time End Time
> Current 380
2019 Jan 31
5
Status of the function merging pass?
Hi,
I'm interested in finding ways to reduce code size. LLVM's MergeFunctions pass seems like a promising option, and I'm curious about its status in tree.
Enabling MergeFunctions gives a 1% code size reduction across the entire iOS shared cache (a collection of a few hundred system-critical DSO's). The numbers are even more compelling for Swift code. In fact, the swift compiler
2015 Nov 17
12
3.7.1-rc1 has been tagged. Let's begin testing!
Hi,
I have just tagged 3.7.1-rc1, so it is ready for testing. As a
reminder, when doing regression testing, use the 3.7.0 release
as your baseline.
Thanks,
Tom
2019 Nov 20
4
LNT debuginfo-statistics not running?
The debug info statistics bot is triggered by this job: http://green.lab.llvm.org/green/job/clang-stage2-Rthinlto/ which unfortunately hasn't been green in a very long time (>1mo).
Alex/Azhar, do you know what's blocking that job?
-- adrian
> On Nov 20, 2019, at 9:46 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +usual debug info folks (but I think in this case
2019 Nov 20
3
LNT debuginfo-statistics not running?
Hi llvm-dev@
LNT produces statistics and graphs (such as [0]) of debuginfo metrics,
such as number of source variables with locations. It looks like these
haven't run [1] since the move from svn to git -- are there any plans
to get these running again? I find it highly useful to identify what
commits have affected variable locations and how significant an
affect.
[0]
2013 Sep 08
2
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Compile-time and Execution-time analysis for the SCEV canonicalization
Hello all,
I have done some basic experiments about Polly canonicalization passes and I found the SCEV canonicalization has significant impact on both compile-time and execution-time performance.
Detailed results for SCEV and default canonicalization can be viewed on: http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/32 (or 33, 34)
*pNoGen with SCEV canonicalization (run 32): -O3 -Xclang -load
2013 Aug 02
1
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Update of Polly compile-time performance on LLVM test-suite
At 2013-08-01 23:29:14,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote:
>On 07/31/2013 09:23 PM, Star Tan wrote:
>> At 2013-07-31 22:50:57,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es
>> <mailto:tobias at grosser.es>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 07/30/2013 10:03 AM, Star Tan wrote:
>>>> Hi Tobias and all Polly developers,
2017 Jan 18
10
llvm is getting slower, January edition
Hi,
Continuing recent efforts in understanding compile time slowdowns, I looked at some historical data: I picked one test and tried to pin-point commits that affected its compile-time. The data I have is not 100% accurate, but hopefully it helps to provide an overview of what's going on with compile time in LLVM and give a better understanding of what changes usually impact compile time.
2013 Aug 09
2
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Summary of some expensive compiler passes, especially PollyDependence
At 2013-08-09 10:20:46,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote:>On 08/08/2013 06:27 PM, Star Tan wrote:
>> At 2013-08-08 22:28:33,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote:
>>> On 08/08/2013 01:29 AM, Star Tan wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>>
2013 Sep 08
0
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Compile-time and Execution-time analysis for the SCEV canonicalization
On 09/08/2013 08:03 PM, Star Tan wrote:
> Hello all,
>
>
> I have done some basic experiments about Polly canonicalization passes and I found the SCEV canonicalization has significant impact on both compile-time and execution-time performance.
Interesting.
> Detailed results for SCEV and default canonicalization can be viewed on: http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/32 (or