[llvm-commits] CVS: llvm/test/Programs/SingleSource/CustomChecked/stepanov_v1p2.cpp Makefile
Chris Lattner
lattner at cs.uiuc.edu
Sat Oct 18 01:36:01 PDT 2003
Changes in directory llvm/test/Programs/SingleSource/CustomChecked:
stepanov_v1p2.cpp added (r1.1)
Makefile updated: 1.7 -> 1.8
---
Log message:
Add the stepanov benchmark
---
Diffs of the changes: (+341 -1)
Index: llvm/test/Programs/SingleSource/CustomChecked/stepanov_v1p2.cpp
diff -c /dev/null llvm/test/Programs/SingleSource/CustomChecked/stepanov_v1p2.cpp:1.1
*** /dev/null Sat Oct 18 01:35:56 2003
--- llvm/test/Programs/SingleSource/CustomChecked/stepanov_v1p2.cpp Sat Oct 18 01:35:46 2003
***************
*** 0 ****
--- 1,339 ----
+ /* KAI's version of Stepanov Benchmark -- Version 1.2
+
+ Version 1.2 -- removed some special code for GNU systems that
+ GNU complained about without -O
+
+ To verify how efficiently C++ (and in particular STL) is compiled by
+ the present day compilers, I composed a little benchmark. It outputs
+ 13 numbers. In the ideal world these numbers should be the same. In
+ the real world, however, ...
+
+ The final number printed by the benchmark is a geometric mean of the
+ performance degradation factors of individual tests. It claims to
+ represent the factor by which you will be punished by your
+ compiler if you attempt to use C++ data abstraction features. I call
+ this number "Abstraction Penalty."
+
+ As with any benchmark it is hard to prove such a claim; some people
+ told me that it does not represent typical C++ usage. It is, however,
+ a noteworthy fact that majority of the people who so object are
+ responsible for C++ compilers with disproportionatly large Abstraction
+ Penalty.
+
+ The structure of the benchmark is really quite simple. It adds 2000
+ doubles in an array 25000 times. It does it in 13 different ways that
+ introduce more and more abstract ways of doing it:
+
+ 0 - uses simple Fortran-like for loop.
+ 1 - 12 use STL style accumulate template function with plus function object.
+ 1, 3, 5, 7 ,9, 11 use doubles.
+ 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 use Double - double wrapped in a class.
+ 1, 2 - use regular pointers.
+ 3, 4 - use pointers wrapped in a class.
+ 5, 6 - use pointers wrapped in a reverse-iterator adaptor.
+ 7, 8 - use wrapped pointers wrapped in a reverse-iterator adaptor.
+ 9, 10 - use pointers wrapped in a reverse-iterator adaptor wrapped in a
+ reverse-iterator adaptor.
+ 11, 12 - use wrapped pointers wrapped in a reverse-iterator adaptor wrapped
+ in a reverse-iterator adaptor.
+
+ All the operators on Double and different pointer-like classes are
+ declared inline. The only thing that is really measured is the penalty
+ for data abstraction. While templates are used, they do not cause any
+ performance degradation. They are used only to simplify the code.
+
+ Since many of you are interested in the C++ performance issues, I
+ decided to post the benchmark here. I would appreciate if you run it
+ and (if possible) send me the results indicating what you have
+ compiled it with (CPU, clock rate, compiler, optimization level). It
+ is self contained and written so that it could be compiled even with
+ those compilers that at present cannot compile STL at all.
+
+ It takes a fairly long time to run - on a really slow machine it might
+ take a full hour. (For those of you who want to run it faster - give
+ it a command line argument that specifies the number of
+ iterations. The default is 25000, but it gives an accurate predictions
+ even with 500 or a thousand.)
+
+
+ Alex Stepanov
+ stepanov at mti.sgi.com
+
+ */
+
+
+ #include <stddef.h>
+ #include <stdio.h>
+ #include <time.h>
+ #include <math.h>
+ #include <stdlib.h>
+
+ template <class T>
+ inline int operator!=(const T& x, const T& y) {
+ return !(x == y);
+ }
+
+ struct Double {
+ double value;
+ Double() {}
+ Double(const double& x) : value(x) {}
+ operator double() { return value; }
+ };
+
+ inline Double operator+(const Double& x, const Double& y) {
+ return Double(x.value + y.value);
+ }
+
+ struct double_pointer {
+ double* current;
+ double_pointer() {}
+ double_pointer(double* x) : current(x) {}
+ double& operator*() const { return *current; }
+ double_pointer& operator++() {
+ ++current;
+ return *this;
+ }
+ double_pointer operator++(int) {
+ double_pointer tmp = *this;
+ ++*this;
+ return tmp;
+ }
+ double_pointer& operator--() {
+ --current;
+ return *this;
+ }
+ double_pointer operator--(int) {
+ double_pointer tmp = *this;
+ --*this;
+ return tmp;
+ }
+ };
+
+
+ inline int operator==(const double_pointer& x,
+ const double_pointer& y) {
+ return x.current == y.current;
+ }
+
+ struct Double_pointer {
+ Double* current;
+ Double_pointer() {}
+ Double_pointer(Double* x) : current(x) {}
+ Double& operator*() const { return *current; }
+ Double_pointer& operator++() {
+ ++current;
+ return *this;
+ }
+ Double_pointer operator++(int) {
+ Double_pointer tmp = *this;
+ ++*this;
+ return tmp;
+ }
+ Double_pointer& operator--() {
+ --current;
+ return *this;
+ }
+ Double_pointer operator--(int) {
+ Double_pointer tmp = *this;
+ --*this;
+ return tmp;
+ }
+ };
+
+
+ inline int operator==(const Double_pointer& x,
+ const Double_pointer& y) {
+ return x.current == y.current;
+ }
+
+ template <class RandomAccessIterator, class T>
+ struct reverse_iterator {
+ RandomAccessIterator current;
+ reverse_iterator(RandomAccessIterator x) : current(x) {}
+ T& operator*() const {
+ RandomAccessIterator tmp = current;
+ return *(--tmp);
+ }
+ reverse_iterator<RandomAccessIterator, T>& operator++() {
+ --current;
+ return *this;
+ }
+ reverse_iterator<RandomAccessIterator, T> operator++(int) {
+ reverse_iterator<RandomAccessIterator, T> tmp = *this;
+ ++*this;
+ return tmp;
+ }
+ reverse_iterator<RandomAccessIterator, T>& operator--() {
+ ++current;
+ return *this;
+ }
+ reverse_iterator<RandomAccessIterator, T> operator--(int) {
+ reverse_iterator<RandomAccessIterator, T> tmp = *this;
+ --*this;
+ return tmp;
+ }
+ };
+
+ template <class RandomAccessIterator, class T>
+ inline int operator==(const reverse_iterator<RandomAccessIterator, T>& x,
+ const reverse_iterator<RandomAccessIterator, T>& y) {
+ return x.current == y.current;
+ }
+
+ struct {
+ double operator()(const double& x, const double& y) {return x + y; }
+ Double operator()(const Double& x, const Double& y) {return x + y; }
+ } plus;
+
+
+ template <class Iterator, class Number>
+ Number accumulate(Iterator first, Iterator last, Number result) {
+ while (first != last) result = plus(result, *first++);
+ return result;
+ }
+
+ int iterations = 25000;
+ #define SIZE 2000
+
+ int current_test = 0;
+
+ double result_times[20];
+
+ void summarize() {
+ printf("\ntest absolute additions ratio with\n");
+ printf("number time per second test0\n\n");
+ int i;
+ double millions = (double(SIZE) * iterations)/1000000.;
+ for (i = 0; i < current_test; ++i)
+ printf("%2i %5.2fsec %5.2fM %.2f\n",
+ i,
+ result_times[i],
+ millions/result_times[i],
+ result_times[i]/result_times[0]);
+ double gmean_times = 0.;
+ double total_absolute_times = 0.; // sam added 12/05/95
+ double gmean_rate = 0.;
+ double gmean_ratio = 0.;
+ for (i = 0; i < current_test; ++i) {
+ total_absolute_times += result_times[i]; // sam added 12/05/95
+ gmean_times += log(result_times[i]);
+ gmean_rate += log(millions/result_times[i]);
+ gmean_ratio += log(result_times[i]/result_times[0]);
+ }
+ printf("mean: %5.2fsec %5.2fM %.2f\n",
+ exp(gmean_times/current_test),
+ exp(gmean_rate/current_test),
+ exp(gmean_ratio/current_test));
+ printf("\nTotal absolute time: %.2f sec\n", total_absolute_times); // sam added 12/05/95
+ printf("\nAbstraction Penalty: %.2f\n\n", exp(gmean_ratio/current_test));
+ }
+
+ clock_t start_time, end_time;
+
+ inline void start_timer() { start_time = clock(); }
+
+ inline double timer() {
+ end_time = clock();
+ return (end_time - start_time)/double(CLOCKS_PER_SEC);
+ }
+
+ const double init_value = 3.;
+
+
+
+ double data[SIZE];
+
+ Double Data[SIZE];
+
+ inline void check(double result) {
+ if (result != SIZE * init_value) printf("test %i failed\n", current_test);
+ }
+
+ void test0(double* first, double* last) {
+ start_timer();
+ for(int i = 0; i < iterations; ++i) {
+ double result = 0;
+ for (int n = 0; n < last - first; ++n) result += first[n];
+ check(result);
+ }
+ result_times[current_test++] = timer();
+ }
+
+
+ template <class Iterator, class T>
+ void test(Iterator first, Iterator last, T zero) {
+ int i;
+ start_timer();
+ for(i = 0; i < iterations; ++i)
+ check(double(accumulate(first, last, zero)));
+ result_times[current_test++] = timer();
+ }
+
+ template <class Iterator, class T>
+ void fill(Iterator first, Iterator last, T value) {
+ while (first != last) *first++ = value;
+ }
+
+
+ double d = 0.;
+ Double D = 0.;
+ typedef double* dp;
+ dp dpb = data;
+ dp dpe = data + SIZE;
+ typedef Double* Dp;
+ Dp Dpb = Data;
+ Dp Dpe = Data + SIZE;
+ typedef double_pointer dP;
+ dP dPb(dpb);
+ dP dPe(dpe);
+ typedef Double_pointer DP;
+ DP DPb(Dpb);
+ DP DPe(Dpe);
+ typedef reverse_iterator<dp, double> rdp;
+ rdp rdpb(dpe);
+ rdp rdpe(dpb);
+ typedef reverse_iterator<Dp, Double> rDp;
+ rDp rDpb(Dpe);
+ rDp rDpe(Dpb);
+ typedef reverse_iterator<dP, double> rdP;
+ rdP rdPb(dPe);
+ rdP rdPe(dPb);
+ typedef reverse_iterator<DP, Double> rDP;
+ rDP rDPb(DPe);
+ rDP rDPe(DPb);
+ typedef reverse_iterator<rdp, double> rrdp;
+ rrdp rrdpb(rdpe);
+ rrdp rrdpe(rdpb);
+ typedef reverse_iterator<rDp, Double> rrDp;
+ rrDp rrDpb(rDpe);
+ rrDp rrDpe(rDpb);
+ typedef reverse_iterator<rdP, double> rrdP;
+ rrdP rrdPb(rdPe);
+ rrdP rrdPe(rdPb);
+ typedef reverse_iterator<rDP, Double> rrDP;
+ rrDP rrDPb(rDPe);
+ rrDP rrDPe(rDPb);
+
+ int main(int argv, char** argc) {
+ if (argv > 1) iterations = atoi(argc[1]);
+ fill(dpb, dpe, double(init_value));
+ fill(Dpb, Dpe, Double(init_value));
+ test0(dpb, dpe);
+ test(dpb, dpe, d);
+ test(Dpb, Dpe, D);
+ test(dPb, dPe, d);
+ test(DPb, DPe, D);
+ test(rdpb, rdpe, d);
+ test(rDpb, rDpe, D);
+ test(rdPb, rdPe, d);
+ test(rDPb, rDPe, D);
+ test(rrdpb, rrdpe, d);
+ test(rrDpb, rrDpe, D);
+ test(rrdPb, rrdPe, d);
+ test(rrDPb, rrDPe, D);
+ summarize();
+ return 0;
+ }
+
+
+
Index: llvm/test/Programs/SingleSource/CustomChecked/Makefile
diff -u llvm/test/Programs/SingleSource/CustomChecked/Makefile:1.7 llvm/test/Programs/SingleSource/CustomChecked/Makefile:1.8
--- llvm/test/Programs/SingleSource/CustomChecked/Makefile:1.7 Mon Sep 15 10:20:29 2003
+++ llvm/test/Programs/SingleSource/CustomChecked/Makefile Sat Oct 18 01:35:46 2003
@@ -6,7 +6,8 @@
include $(LEVEL)/test/Programs/SingleSource/Makefile.singlesrc
-LIBS += -lsupc++
+LIBS += -lsupc++
+LDFLAGS += -lm
LLI_RUN := $(addsuffix .run-lli, $(PREFIXED_PROGRAMS_TO_TEST))
JIT_RUN := $(addsuffix .run-jit, $(PREFIXED_PROGRAMS_TO_TEST))
More information about the llvm-commits
mailing list