[LLVMdev] YA Vectorization Benchmark
daniel at zuster.org
Tue Nov 6 14:28:09 PST 2012
Cool, glad you got it working.
There is very primitive support for tests that generate multiple output
results, but I would rather not use those facilities.
Is it possible instead to refactor the tests so that each binary
corresponds to one test? For example, look at how Hal went about
It isn't particularly pretty, but it fits well with the other parts of the
test suite infrastructure, and probably works out nicer in practice when
tests fail (i.e., you don't want to be staring at a broken bitcode with 24
kernels in one function).
Other things that I would *like* before integrating it:
- Rip out the CPU ID stuff, this isn't useful and adds messiness.
- Have the test just produce output that can be compared, instead of
including its own check routines
- Have the tests run for fixed iterations, instead of doing their own
- Produce reference output files, so it works with USE_REFERENCE_OUTPUT=1
The kernels themselves are really trivial, so it would be ideal if it was
split up to be one-test-per file with minimal other stuff in the test other
than setup and output.
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Renato Golin <rengolin at systemcall.org>wrote:
> Ok, I got the benchmark to work on test-suite, but it's not printing
> details for each run (or execution wouldn't work). I had to comment
> out the printf lines, but nothing more than that.
> I'm not sure how individual timings would have to be extracted, but
> the program produces output via text file, which can be used for
> comparison. Also, it does check the results and does report if they
> were as expected (not sure yet how that's calculated in detail).
> Nevertheless, should be good to have this test, at least to make sure
> we're not breaking floating point loops with vectorization in the
> Attached is a tar ball with the contents of LivermoreLoops to be
> included inside test-suite/SingleSource/Benchmarks. Daniel, can I just
> add this to the SVN repository, or are there other things that need to
> be done as well? It might need some care to fully use the testing
> infrastructure, though.
> On 5 November 2012 22:12, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote:
> > That would be great!
> > On Nov 5, 2012, at 2:11 PM, Renato Golin <rengolin at systemcall.org>
> >> On 5 November 2012 17:41, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote:
> >>> 1. We do not allow reductions on floating point types. We should
> allow them when unsafe-math is used.
> >>> 2. All of the arrays are located in a struct. At the moment we don't
> detect that these arrays are disjoin, and this prevents vectorization.
> >> Indeed, they look like simple changes. If no one is dying to get them
> >> working, I suggest I try these first.
> >> I'll first get the tests running in the test-suite, than I'll try to
> >> vectorize them.
> >> --
> >> cheers,
> >> --renato
> >> http://systemcall.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev