[PATCH] D15559: [SCEVExpander] Make findExistingExpansion smarter
Junmo Park via llvm-commits
llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
Thu Dec 24 20:24:26 PST 2015
flyingforyou marked an inline comment as done.
flyingforyou added a comment.
I ran test-suite, spec on Galaxy S6 Target(CPU 2.1Ghz, MIF 1.5Ghz, Of course it's developtment board. Not exactly same with Galaxy S6).
I also can test on Juno. But it's very slow and I want to test on real world environment.
In my test, I got different data.
> Charlie's test result
> spec on a Cortex-A57 (A64):
> spec.cpu2000.ref.253_perlbmk 4.71%
> spec.cpu2000.ref.256_bzip2 2.07%
> spec.cpu2006.ref.433_milc 1.24%
> spec.cpu2000.ref.254_gap -1.76%
> (I'm focussing on SPEC because it's less noisy than the benchmarks in test-suite, although I do note a 23% improvement in lnt.MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/automotive-susan/automotive-susan and a 7.76% regression in lnt.SingleSource/Benchmarks/Shootout-C++/ackermann)
My test result about Spec (Opt/Ori)
spec.cpu2000.ref.253_perlbmk -> I can't get result. I think without modifying source code, we can't compile it.
My test result about test-suite (Opt/Ori)
I got totally different result on this.
MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/automotive-susan/automotive-susan -> execution time is 0. It's same.
I think both of data also can be worth. And This data is not meaningful any more. As you know, the patch was completely changed. I will share the result data base on recent patch soon.
PS. Could you share how to build "spec.cpu2000.ref.253_perlbmk", please?
More information about the llvm-commits