[llvm-commits] [PATCH] Adding the Linpack test to the test suite

[Renato Golin]

Hi David,

That slipped through the cracks, thanks for reminding me.

Duncan, the options Clang is using that breaks the build are not being
used by my local configuration, possibly some combination of default
flags that I'm not using. However, it seems that the values I'm
getting are more consistent (I haven't calculated them manually to
confirm) than the ones you're seeing with those flags turned on.

Is there a simple way to disable only that flag? If I got it right,
the test-suite will also run the default compiler for the machine (I'm
guessing gcc), so there should be a way of passing the flag just to
clang, not gcc...

cheers,
--renato

PS: I'm seeing other errors in other local examples with -O3 and
vectorization (each wrong differently). I'll send details shortly.

On 7 December 2012 23:16, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
> Still seeing failures of these (including on the newly brought-up osu8):
>
> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-x86_64-linux-fnt/builds/5/steps/make.test-suite/logs/fail.LLC
> (shows livermoorloops & scimark, not sure if linpack is still failing
> anywhere)
>
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>
>> Thanks for letting me know about this.  It looks like Linpack, SciMark and Livermoore are still failing. Do we know when SciMark started failing ?
>>
>> I will look at it later today or tomorrow.
>>
>>
>> On Nov 25, 2012, at 11:17 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure if this has passed previously, but it's failing on
>>> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-x86_64-debian-fnt/builds/12074/steps/make.test-suite/logs/fail.LLC
>>>
>>> Could you please investigate/fix. (it'd be nice to get the bots green)
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 6:07 AM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote:
>>>> At first I thought that only stdout is compared. But after I noticed that stderr is also compared I removed the time prints altogether. I also added a reference file for the test.
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 16, 2012, at 1:02 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Nadav,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 16/11/12 02:02, Nadav Rotem wrote:
>>>>>> I removed the parts of the code that rely on timers to calculate the number of iterations.  However, I left the time measurements that are printed to stderr.
>>>>>
>>>>> won't that result in spurious failures when comparing against the GCC output
>>>>> or the reference output, because the printed times won't be the same?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ciao, Duncan.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Nov 15, 2012, at 4:58 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Nadav,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Did you remove all the timing stuff from the code?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Evan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Nov 15, 2012, at 3:33 PM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here is a patch for adding Roy Longbottom's Linpack benchmark.  Roy agreed that we include the benchmark in our test suite.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <test_suite_linpack.diff>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Nadav
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> llvm-commits mailing list
>>>>>>>> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>>>>>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> llvm-commits mailing list
>>>>>> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>>>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> llvm-commits mailing list
>>>>> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> llvm-commits mailing list
>>>> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>>



-- 
cheers,
--renato

http://systemcall.org/