[LLVMdev] [llvm-testresults] cfarm-x86-64 x86_64 nightly tester results

[Nick Lewycky]

Duncan Sands wrote:
> Hi Chris,
> 
>> Can you check to see if the stepanov_container/fftbench regressions  
>> are real?  If so, it would be very interesting to know what is "going  
>> wrong" on them.
> 
> I think these may not be real.  This version of llvm-gcc was built with
> checking enabled - does this turn on checking in libstdc++?  It seems that
> a bunch of linkonce libstdc++ checking code is now being inlined (presumably
> because it compiled to something smaller than before).  Previously it was
> not being inlined so was discarded, and the version from the system libstdc++
> was used instead.  My guess is that the system libstdc++ version is faster
> because it doesn't do any checking.  To test this theory I've told this
> nightly tester to build llvm-gcc with checking disabled.  If I'm correct
> then stepanov_container/fftbench will speed up hugely in a few days time
> when the tester starts using the new llvm-gcc.

If it helps, my nightly tester "desire" updates its version of llvm-gcc 
before every nightly test.

Nick

> Ciao,
> 
> Duncan.
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>