<html>
    <head>
      <base href="https://bugs.llvm.org/">
    </head>
    <body><table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="8">
        <tr>
          <th>Bug ID</th>
          <td><a class="bz_bug_link 
          bz_status_NEW "
   title="NEW - [llvm-exegesis] All benchmarks of the same opcode should be within eps of eachanother."
   href="https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40787">40787</a>
          </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <th>Summary</th>
          <td>[llvm-exegesis] All benchmarks of the same opcode should be within eps of eachanother.
          </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <th>Product</th>
          <td>tools
          </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <th>Version</th>
          <td>trunk
          </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <th>Hardware</th>
          <td>PC
          </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <th>OS</th>
          <td>Linux
          </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <th>Status</th>
          <td>NEW
          </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <th>Severity</th>
          <td>enhancement
          </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <th>Priority</th>
          <td>P
          </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <th>Component</th>
          <td>llvm-exegesis
          </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <th>Assignee</th>
          <td>unassignedbugs@nondot.org
          </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <th>Reporter</th>
          <td>lebedev.ri@gmail.com
          </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <th>CC</th>
          <td>clement.courbet@gmail.com, gchatelet@google.com, llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org
          </td>
        </tr></table>
      <p>
        <div>
        <pre>A follow up for <a class="bz_bug_link 
          bz_status_RESOLVED  bz_closed"
   title="RESOLVED FIXED - [llvm-exegesis] If the same instruction lies in multiple clusters, it's noise"
   href="show_bug.cgi?id=40715">https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40715</a>
I'm not sure if this is working as intended or not, but the current clustering
code may still end up clustering together benchmark points that are different.
I.e. after clustering, given a cluster, the points within that cluster may
be more offset from each another than the `-analysis-epsilon=`.

This might be a bug in itself Is it?

If not, i believe i will need to introduce an early stabilization sweep,
i.e. go through all the points, create a [opcode]=>{p0, ...} mapping,
and then go through each opcode in that map, and if there is more than one
point for an opcode, verify that every combination (every 2 points)
of these points is `isNeighbour()`. If not, add all these points for
this opcode into a new unstable cluster.
Thus, the normal clustering logic will skip them.</pre>
        </div>
      </p>


      <hr>
      <span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>

      <ul>
          <li>You are on the CC list for the bug.</li>
      </ul>
    </body>
</html>