[cfe-dev] [LLVMdev] Performance Tracking

[Matthieu Monrocq]

Le 14 novembre 2011 20:40, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> a écrit :

>
> On Nov 14, 2011, at 10:46 AM, David Chisnall wrote:
>
> > Hello Everyone,
> >
> > I've been looking at benchmarks of LLVM recently, and overall they look
> pretty good.  Aside from things that use OpenMP or benefit from
> autovectorisation, Clang/LLVM and GCC seem to come fairly close, with no
> overall winner.
>
> Nice. Thanks.
>
> >
> > But: there do seem to have been a number of performance regressions
> between 2.9 and 3.0:
> >
> > http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1110178-AR-1110173AR66
> >
> > Identifying where these were introduced is quite difficult.  I wonder if
> some of the buildbots could be persuaded, after building clang, to build
> and run some benchmark projects (e.g. perlbench, povray, flac / lame,
> whatever) and email people if they introduce a performance regression, just
> as the current buildbots email people who break the build.
>
> Step one would be to adopt these tests into the LLVM test harness. It will
> force organizations that care about performance to start paying attention
> to these benchmarks.
>
> Evan
>
> >
> > David
>
>
Many thanks David, it had been a while (6 months I guess) since the last
benchmark I saw and I was wondering how the new Clang/LLVM compared to GCC!

One comment though, the graphs are great, however the alternance of "less
is better"/"more is better" makes for a difficult read: it's not obvious at
a glance which is performing better and it's difficult to get a quick
overview surveying the few graphs available.

Perhaps that introducing a relative performance would help: normalize on
the winner and indicate the factor or percentage next to the "losers" ?

Thanks for taking the time of doing this anyway, I'm looking forward to the
final article.

-- Matthieu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20111116/fe16dd5b/attachment.html>