Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 03:23:00 +0700 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22C=2E_Bergstr=F6m=22?= <cbergstrom@pathscale.com> To: Tak Pui Lou <tplou@lbl.gov> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Porting PathScale's EKOPath Compiler Suite Message-ID: <4ECFF924.9010403@pathscale.com> In-Reply-To: <08E5746B-621E-47D6-AE0E-8D359608284F@LBL.gov> References: <08E5746B-621E-47D6-AE0E-8D359608284F@LBL.gov>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 11/25/11 04:38 PM, Tak Pui Lou wrote: > Hello, > > I have tested the port from http://people.freebsd.org/~jkim/path64-devel-20111117.tar.bz2 and http://people.freebsd.org/~jkim/path64-20111115.tar.xz but the compiler failed in the following tests: > > 3/6 Test #3: regression_tests .................***Failed 0.81 sec > Start 4: hello_c > 4/6 Test #4: hello_c .......................... Passed 0.14 sec > Start 5: hello_cpp > 5/6 Test #5: hello_cpp ........................ Passed 0.67 sec > Start 6: path64_bootstrap_test > 6/6 Test #6: path64_bootstrap_test ............***Failed 42.28 sec > > 67% tests passed, 2 tests failed out of 6 > > Total Test time (real) = 44.74 sec > > The following tests FAILED: > 3 - regression_tests (Failed) > 6 - path64_bootstrap_test (Failed) > Errors while running CTest > > Are these known errors for that build? Normally I'd bug you about using vanilla upstream, but in this case I think JK's branch is in better shape. (Apologies about not merging it yet, but we have a QA project we'll be testing it with and open sourcing soon - compiler agnostic fwiw) Specifically about your question - It's probably unexpected and I'm curious what processor and version of FBSD this is. > > I also tested it on a fortran code. Here is the runtime result: > > 0.923u /usr/local/path64/bin/pathf95 -O3 -LANG:copyinout=ON:recursive=ON -OPT:goto=ON > 1.283u gfortran46 -O3 > > I actually compiled gfortran with CLooG-PPL but the optimization flags from GRAPHITE does not change the run time of this code. Am I reading the result correctly that we're faster? You may also want to add/test -ipa to your flags.. Side notes : 1) -ipa == LTO in gcc which I don't know if it works at all on FBSD (We have some linker work that may help this situation in the future) 2) I don't care what others say - Graphite isn't afaik production ready so *if* you ever do see any performance gains from it - ensure that you strongly validate before using in production setup 3) We've added the latest User Guide online - http://www.pathscale.com/EKOPath-User-Guide Thanks a lot for testing! ./C
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4ECFF924.9010403>