[LLVMdev] [Patch][Review Requested][Compilation Time] Avoid frequent copy of elements in LoopStrengthReduce

[Murali, Sriram]

The compilation time is measured for different benchmarks while compiling a .bc file into a shared object. The improvement across the range of benchmarks is listed in following table. If the reason behind the need for other performance metrics is to identify possible measurement errors, then I think this table would be of some help. However, we do not have the standard deviation and confidence interval at the moment.
Benchmark\ Improvement (%)

Trunk

BaseRegs.Size

401.bzip2

100.00

101.14

403.gcc

100.00

100.33

429.mcf

100.00

100.37

433.milc

100.00

99.85

444.namd

100.00

100.28

445.gobmk

100.00

100.11

450.soplex

100.00

100.46

456.hmmer

100.00

100.29

458.sjeng

100.00

100.70

464.h264ref

100.00

102.10

470.lbm

100.00

100.07

471.omnetpp

100.00

100.36

bitmnp01

100.00

100.44

cjpegv2data6

100.00

100.76

idctrn01

100.00

99.83

libquake2

100.00

100.08

libquake_portable

100.00

100.02

libxcsoar

100.00

100.08

linpack

100.00

101.07

matrix01

100.00

100.28

nbench

100.00

100.76

tblook01

100.00

101.52

ttsprk01

100.00

100.82

Geomean

100.00

100.51





-----Original Message-----
From: Sean Silva [mailto:silvas at purdue.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 6:41 PM
To: Murali, Sriram
Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [Patch][Review Requested][Compilation Time] Avoid frequent copy of elements in LoopStrengthReduce



On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Murali, Sriram <sriram.murali at intel.com<mailto:sriram.murali at intel.com>> wrote:

> Our benchmark results show that the compilation time performance

> improved by ~0.5%.



That's fairly small; what was the standard deviation, confidence interval, etc?



-- Sean Silva
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130130/6faf3223/attachment.html>