Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 23:26:30 -0800 From: Tak Pui Lou <tplou@lbl.gov> To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22C=2E_Bergstr=F6m=22?= <cbergstrom@pathscale.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Porting PathScale's EKOPath Compiler Suite Message-ID: <5C4A8661-DFF0-4F4A-9E0E-E33083FB1B2D@lbl.gov> In-Reply-To: <4ECFF924.9010403@pathscale.com> References: <08E5746B-621E-47D6-AE0E-8D359608284F@LBL.gov> <4ECFF924.9010403@pathscale.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Nov 25, 2011, at 12:23 PM, C. Bergstr=F6m wrote: > On 11/25/11 04:38 PM, Tak Pui Lou wrote: >> Hello, >>=20 >> 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: >>=20 >> 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 >>=20 >> 67% tests passed, 2 tests failed out of 6 >>=20 >> Total Test time (real) =3D 44.74 sec >>=20 >> The following tests FAILED: >> 3 - regression_tests (Failed) >> 6 - path64_bootstrap_test (Failed) >> Errors while running CTest >>=20 >> 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) >=20 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. >>=20 >> I also tested it on a fortran code. Here is the runtime result: >>=20 >> 0.923u /usr/local/path64/bin/pathf95 -O3 = -LANG:copyinout=3DON:recursive=3DON -OPT:goto=3DON >> 1.283u gfortran46 -O3 >>=20 >> 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.. >=20 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.) > Side notes : > 1) -ipa =3D=3D 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 >=20 > Thanks a lot for testing! >=20 > ./C Thank you for making PathScale Compilers open source! ---L=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5C4A8661-DFF0-4F4A-9E0E-E33083FB1B2D>