[llvm-commits] [PATCH] Adding the Linpack test to the test suite

[Benjamin Kramer]

On 25.11.2012, at 22:08, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote:
>> Hi David,
>> 
>> Thanks for letting me know about this.  It looks like Linpack, SciMark and Livermoore are still failing. Do we know when SciMark started failing ?
> 
> No - it looks like SciMark is timing out. It also happens to line up
> with Linpack finishing just as SciMark times out (at least in the one
> log I sampled) - I wonder if Linpack is taxing the system more than
> other tests & pushing SciMark past its time limit when they both
> happen to be run simultaneously (since this bot is running the test
> suite in parallel).

The SciMark failure has been there for a while, see http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=13399
It looks pretty major but I failed to reproduce it with the full source so far.

- Ben

> 
> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-x86_64-debian-fnt/builds/12074/steps/make.test-suite/logs/stdio
> for more details
> 
>> I will look at it later today or tomorrow.
> 
> Thanks - not exactly a rush job (this being a weekend & all & it's
> been broken for quite a while so a day or two isn't going to change
> that) but I wanted to make sure it was brought up.
> 
> - David
> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Nov 25, 2012, at 11:17 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> I'm not sure if this has passed previously, but it's failing on
>>> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-x86_64-debian-fnt/builds/12074/steps/make.test-suite/logs/fail.LLC
>>> 
>>> Could you please investigate/fix. (it'd be nice to get the bots green)
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 6:07 AM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote:
>>>> At first I thought that only stdout is compared. But after I noticed that stderr is also compared I removed the time prints altogether. I also added a reference file for the test.
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> On Nov 16, 2012, at 1:02 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Nadav,
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 16/11/12 02:02, Nadav Rotem wrote:
>>>>>> I removed the parts of the code that rely on timers to calculate the number of iterations.  However, I left the time measurements that are printed to stderr.
>>>>> 
>>>>> won't that result in spurious failures when comparing against the GCC output
>>>>> or the reference output, because the printed times won't be the same?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ciao, Duncan.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Nov 15, 2012, at 4:58 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi Nadav,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Did you remove all the timing stuff from the code?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Evan
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Nov 15, 2012, at 3:33 PM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Here is a patch for adding Roy Longbottom's Linpack benchmark.  Roy agreed that we include the benchmark in our test suite.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> <test_suite_linpack.diff>
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Nadav
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> llvm-commits mailing list
>>>>>>>> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>>>>>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> llvm-commits mailing list
>>>>>> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>>>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> llvm-commits mailing list
>>>>> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> llvm-commits mailing list
>>>> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits