Re: Comparison of GCC-4.6.1 and LLVM-2.9 on x86/x86-64 targets

2011-09-12 Thread Vladimir Makarov
On 09/09/2011 07:30 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote: On 9/7/11, Vladimir Makarov wrote: Some people asked me to do comparison of GCC-4.6 and LLVM-2.9 (both released this spring) as I did GCC-LLVM comparison in previous year. You can find it on http://vmakarov.fedorapeople.org/spec under 2011 GCC-LLV

Re: Comparison of GCC-4.6.1 and LLVM-2.9 on x86/x86-64 targets

2011-09-10 Thread Gabriel Dos Reis
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote: > In my mind, an interesting graph would be to plot the execution > time of the benchmarks as a function of the compile time of the > benchmarks.  This graph would show you, in particular, what you > buy or lose by changing compilers and/or op

Re: Comparison of GCC-4.6.1 and LLVM-2.9 on x86/x86-64 targets

2011-09-09 Thread Lawrence Crowl
On 9/7/11, Vladimir Makarov wrote: > Some people asked me to do comparison of GCC-4.6 and LLVM-2.9 (both > released this spring) as I did GCC-LLVM comparison in previous year. > > You can find it on http://vmakarov.fedorapeople.org/spec under > 2011 GCC-LLVM comparison tab entry. The format of t

Re: Comparison of GCC-4.6.1 and LLVM-2.9 on x86/x86-64 targets

2011-09-09 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 10:26:22AM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote: > Yes, Jakub. It would be better to use corei7 with avx for GCC. > Unfortunately, the last tuning which llvm 2.9 supports is core2 > therefore I used -march=core2 for comparison on x86-64. So I think > it would be unfair to use cor

Re: Comparison of GCC-4.6.1 and LLVM-2.9 on x86/x86-64 targets

2011-09-09 Thread Vladimir Makarov
On 09/08/2011 04:47 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 11:15:39AM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote: This year I used -Ofast -flto -fwhole-program instead of -O3 for GCC and -O3 -ffast-math for LLVM for comparison of peak performance. I could improve GCC performance even more by us

Re: Comparison of GCC-4.6.1 and LLVM-2.9 on x86/x86-64 targets

2011-09-09 Thread Vladimir Makarov
On 09/07/2011 12:23 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote: On 09/07/2011 11:55 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote: Why is lto/whole program mode not used in LLVM for peak performance comparison? (of course, peak performance should really use FDO..) Thanks for the feedback. I did not manage to use LTO for LLVM a

Re: Comparison of GCC-4.6.1 and LLVM-2.9 on x86/x86-64 targets

2011-09-08 Thread Duncan Sands
Why is lto/whole program mode not used in LLVM for peak performance comparison? (of course, peak performance should really use FDO..) Thanks for the feedback. I did not manage to use LTO for LLVM as it described on http://llvm.org/docs/LinkTimeOptimization.html#lto I am getting 'file not reco

Re: Comparison of GCC-4.6.1 and LLVM-2.9 on x86/x86-64 targets

2011-09-08 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 11:15:39AM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote: > This year I used -Ofast -flto -fwhole-program instead of > -O3 for GCC and -O3 -ffast-math for LLVM for comparison of peak > performance. I could improve GCC performance even more by using > other GCC possibilities (like support

Re: Comparison of GCC-4.6.1 and LLVM-2.9 on x86/x86-64 targets

2011-09-08 Thread Richard Guenther
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote: > On 09/07/2011 11:55 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote: >> >> Why is lto/whole program mode not used in LLVM for peak performance >> comparison? (of course, peak performance should really use FDO..) >> > Thanks for the feedback.  I did not manage

Re: Comparison of GCC-4.6.1 and LLVM-2.9 on x86/x86-64 targets

2011-09-07 Thread Duncan Sands
On 07/09/11 17:55, Xinliang David Li wrote: Why is lto/whole program mode not used in LLVM for peak performance comparison? (of course, peak performance should really use FDO..) Assuming Vladimir was using the dragonegg plugin: presumably because it's a pain: you have to compile everything to a

Re: Comparison of GCC-4.6.1 and LLVM-2.9 on x86/x86-64 targets

2011-09-07 Thread Vladimir Makarov
On 09/07/2011 11:28 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: Hi Vladimir, thanks for doing this. The above said about compilation speed is true when GCC front-end is used for LLVM. It's not clear to me which GCC front-end you mean. There is llvm-gcc (based on gcc-4.2) and the dragonegg plugin (the 2.9 versio

Re: Comparison of GCC-4.6.1 and LLVM-2.9 on x86/x86-64 targets

2011-09-07 Thread Vladimir Makarov
On 09/07/2011 11:55 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote: Why is lto/whole program mode not used in LLVM for peak performance comparison? (of course, peak performance should really use FDO..) Thanks for the feedback. I did not manage to use LTO for LLVM as it described on http://llvm.org/docs/LinkTim

Re: Comparison of GCC-4.6.1 and LLVM-2.9 on x86/x86-64 targets

2011-09-07 Thread Xinliang David Li
Why is lto/whole program mode not used in LLVM for peak performance comparison? (of course, peak performance should really use FDO..) thanks, David On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 8:15 AM, Vladimir Makarov wrote: >  Some people asked me to do comparison of  GCC-4.6 and LLVM-2.9 (both > released this spr

Re: Comparison of GCC-4.6.1 and LLVM-2.9 on x86/x86-64 targets

2011-09-07 Thread Duncan Sands
Hi Vladimir, thanks for doing this. The above said about compilation speed is true when GCC front-end is used for LLVM. It's not clear to me which GCC front-end you mean. There is llvm-gcc (based on gcc-4.2) and the dragonegg plugin (the 2.9 version works with gcc-4.5; the development version

Comparison of GCC-4.6.1 and LLVM-2.9 on x86/x86-64 targets

2011-09-07 Thread Vladimir Makarov
Some people asked me to do comparison of GCC-4.6 and LLVM-2.9 (both released this spring) as I did GCC-LLVM comparison in previous year. You can find it on http://vmakarov.fedorapeople.org/spec under 2011 GCC-LLVM comparison tab entry. This year the comparison is done on GCC 4.6 and LLVM