[LLVMdev] ARM Qualification

Joerg Sonnenberger joerg at britannica.bec.de
Thu Oct 13 16:16:26 PDT 2011

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 03:56:55PM -0700, Andrew Trick wrote:
> On Oct 11, 2011, at 4:48 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 06:20:17PM -0500, David A. Greene wrote:
> >> This seems excessive and unrealistic.  We're never going to come up with
> >> a testsuite that satisfies everyone's needs and doing so could well be
> >> counter-productive.  If no one can commit anything unless it passes
> >> every test (including performance) for every target under multiple
> >> option combinations, nothing will ever get committed.  Especially if no
> >> one has access to systems to debug on.
> > 
> > As I see it, there are regulary commits that introduce performance and
> > code size regressions. There doesn't seem to be any formal testing in
> > place. Not for X86, not for ARM. Hunting down regressions like
> > enable-iv-rewrite=false, which added 130 Bytes to a piece of code that
> > can only be 8KB large in total is painful and slow. From my point of
> > view, the only way to ensure that the compiler does a good job is
> > providing a test infrastructure to monitor this. This is about forcing
> > pre-commit test, it is about ensuring that the testing is done at all
> > in a timely manner.
> The change you refer to was not intended to improve performance at the expense of code size.
> Has this been fixed on trunk, or did you discover the workaround and move on without filing a bug?

I haven't filled a bug yet, since I haven't had time to produce a proper
test case. I have disabled the option for now explicitly.


More information about the llvm-dev mailing list