[llvm-dev] Benchmarks for LLVM-generated Binaries

[Dean Michael Berris via llvm-dev]

> On 2 Sep 2016, at 11:19, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:
> 
> On 2 September 2016 at 02:13, Dean Michael Berris <dean.berris at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think it should be possible to have a snapshot of it included. I don't know what the licensing implications are (I'm not a lawyer, but I know someone who is -- paging Danny Berlin).
> 
> The test-suite has a very large number of licenses (compared to LLVM),
> so licensing should be less of a problem there. Though Dan can help
> more than I can. :)
> 

Cool, let's wait for what Danny thinks on the patch I'll be preparing. :)

> 
>> I'm not as concerned about falling behind on versions there though mostly because it should be trivial to update it if we need it. Though like you, I agree this isn't the best way of doing it. :)
> 
> If we start using it more (maybe we should, at least for the
> benchmarks, I've been long wanting to do something decent there), then
> we'd need to add a proper update procedure.
> 
> I'm fine with some checkout if it's a stable release, not trunk, as it
> would make things a lot easier to update later (patch releases, new
> releases, etc).
> 

SGTM.

> 
> 
>> Thanks -- this doesn't tell me how to run the test though... I could certainly do it by hand (i.e. build the executables and run it) and I suspect I'm not alone in wanting to be able to do this easily through the CMake+Ninja (or other generator) workflow.
> 
> Ah, no, that helped you adding your test. :)
> 
> 
>> Do you know if someone is working on that aspect?
> 
> http://llvm.org/docs/lnt/quickstart.html
> 
> This is *exactly* what Perf (the monitoring website) does, so you're
> sure to get the same result on both sides if you run it locally like
> that. I do.
> 

Ah, cool. That works for me. :)

> You can choose to run down to a specific test/benchmark, so it's quick
> and easy to use while developing, too.
> 

Awesome stuff, thanks Renato!

-- Dean