Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 17:48:56 +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: <4ED0C418.5000307@pathscale.com> In-Reply-To: <5C4A8661-DFF0-4F4A-9E0E-E33083FB1B2D@lbl.gov> References: <08E5746B-621E-47D6-AE0E-8D359608284F@LBL.gov> <4ECFF924.9010403@pathscale.com> <5C4A8661-DFF0-4F4A-9E0E-E33083FB1B2D@lbl.gov>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 11/26/11 02:26 PM, Tak Pui Lou wrote: > On Nov 25, 2011, at 12:23 PM, C. Bergström wrote: > >> 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) >> > I did search on the Internet to check if the upstream has got the patches merged or not. But, I did not find too much information about this. So, I tried JK's branch instead. When you feel that I should try the source on github, please let me know. >> Specifically about your question - It's probably unexpected and I'm curious what processor and version of FBSD this is. > The kernel is compiled from 9.0-RC2 (releng/9.0 r227910) with gcc 4.2 that comes with the OS. I cannot give you the 'uname -a' output now because I have just compiled and installed a kernel with clang but I remembered it was updated two days ago before I upgraded from stable/8 to releng/9.0. The CPU is an AMD Athlon II 270u x2 running at 2 GHz. >>> 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.. >> > Yes, this code compiled from pathf95 runs faster than that compiled from gfortran46. It may be more interesting to mention that I also have OpenIndiana 151a installed on the same computer and tested the code with Solaris Studio 12.2. The runtime for the same code compiled with Solaris Studio 12.2 is ~1.0xx u. On OpenIndiana, I have only tested the optimization flags that do not require SUNWprivate_1.5 version of libmtsk.so. All results are checked in those run. > > I will try -ipa later and let you know if it makes any difference in runtime. (I think I have already tried that but let me do this again.) I'll get you setup with EKOPath/Path64 on OI as well so you can check that our performance is consistent across OS and your test environments
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4ED0C418.5000307>