similar to: [test-suite] Fix for CFLAGS="-ffp-contract=on"

Hey folks, Some progress has been made since the first thread: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-March/111129.html And also I think the consensus is to enable "-ffp-contract=on" by default (instead of "fast"), which seems to be working on some preliminary tests I made. I just ran the test-suite on x86_64 and AArch64. The former is ok, the latter still has some

Hi, Below you can see the updated benchmark results for the new SLP-vectorizer. As you can see, there is a small number of compile time regressions, a single major runtime *regression, and many performance gains. There is a tiny increase in code size: 30k for the whole test-suite. Based on the numbers below I would like to enable the SLP-vectorizer by default for -O3. Please let me know if you

Sorry for not posting sooner. I forgot to send an update with the results. I also have some benchmark data. It confirms much of what you posted -- binary size increase is essentially 0, performance increases across the board. It looks really good to me. However, there was one crash that I'd like to check if it still fires. Will update later today (feel free to ping me if you don't hear

Hello, I was interested in how much Type-Based Alias Analysis helps to optimize code. For that purpose, I've compared three sets of benchmarks: compiled without TBAA, compiled with a default TBAA metadata format, and compiled with new TBAA metadata format. As a set of benchmarks, I've used the LLVM test suite (http://llvm.org/docs/TestingGuide.html#test-suite-overview) which has a lot of

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 >>

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>,

Cool! What changes have you seen to generated code size? I'll take it for a spin on our benchmarks. On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 11:30 PM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote: > Hi, > > LLVM’s SLP-vectorizer is a new pass that combines similar independent > instructions in a straight-line code. It is currently not enabled by > default, and people who want to

On Jul 13, 2013, at 11:30 PM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote: > Hi, > > LLVM’s SLP-vectorizer is a new pass that combines similar independent instructions in a straight-line code. It is currently not enabled by default, and people who want to experiment with it can use the clang command line flag “-fslp-vectorize”. I ran LLVM’s test suite with and without the SLP

Hi, LLVM’s SLP-vectorizer is a new pass that combines similar independent instructions in a straight-line code. It is currently not enabled by default, and people who want to experiment with it can use the clang command line flag “-fslp-vectorize”. I ran LLVM’s test suite with and without the SLP vectorizer on a Sandybridge mac (using SSE4, w/o AVX). Based on my performance measurements

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 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 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 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

Hi, Sorry for the delay in response. I measured the code size change and noticed small changes in both directions for individual programs. I found a 30k binary size growth for the entire testsuite + SPEC. I attached an updated performance report that includes both compile time and performance measurements. Thanks, Nadav On Jul 14, 2013, at 10:55 PM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com>

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 Jul 14, 2013, at 9:52 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jul 13, 2013, at 11:30 PM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> LLVM’s SLP-vectorizer is a new pass that combines similar independent instructions in a straight-line code. It is currently not enabled by default, and people who want to experiment with it

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 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 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