From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 25 20:48:49 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25C17106564A for ; Fri, 25 Nov 2011 20:48:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cbergstrom@pathscale.com) Received: from mail-yx0-f182.google.com (mail-yx0-f182.google.com [209.85.213.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD3468FC16 for ; Fri, 25 Nov 2011 20:48:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: by yenq9 with SMTP id q9so5435608yen.13 for ; Fri, 25 Nov 2011 12:48:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.182.145.38 with SMTP id sr6mr9739690obb.65.1322252620260; Fri, 25 Nov 2011 12:23:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.42] (ppp-115-87-225-143.revip4.asianet.co.th. [115.87.225.143]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id h4sm274016obt.9.2011.11.25.12.23.31 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 25 Nov 2011 12:23:38 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4ECFF924.9010403@pathscale.com> Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 03:23:00 +0700 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22C=2E_Bergstr=F6m=22?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; SunOS i86pc; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20111003 Thunderbird/6.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tak Pui Lou References: <08E5746B-621E-47D6-AE0E-8D359608284F@LBL.gov> In-Reply-To: <08E5746B-621E-47D6-AE0E-8D359608284F@LBL.gov> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Porting PathScale's EKOPath Compiler Suite X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 20:48:49 -0000 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