On Nov 25, 2011, at 12:23 PM, C. Bergström wrote: > On 11/25/11 04:38 PM, Tak Pui Lou wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I have tested the port from >> http://people.freebsd.org/~jkim/path64-devel-20111117.tar.bz2 and >> http://people.freebsd.org/~jkim/path64-20111115.tar.xz but the compiler >> failed in the following tests: >> >> 3/6 Test #3: regression_tests .................***Failed 0.81 sec >> Start 4: hello_c >> 4/6 Test #4: hello_c .......................... Passed 0.14 sec >> Start 5: hello_cpp >> 5/6 Test #5: hello_cpp ........................ Passed 0.67 sec >> Start 6: path64_bootstrap_test >> 6/6 Test #6: path64_bootstrap_test ............***Failed 42.28 sec >> >> 67% tests passed, 2 tests failed out of 6 >> >> Total Test time (real) = 44.74 sec >> >> The following tests FAILED: >> 3 - regression_tests (Failed) >> 6 - path64_bootstrap_test (Failed) >> Errors while running CTest >> >> Are these known errors for that build? > Normally I'd bug you about using vanilla upstream, but in this case I think > JK's branch is in better shape. (Apologies about not merging it yet, but we > have a QA project we'll be testing it with and open sourcing soon - compiler > agnostic fwiw) > I did search on the Internet to check if the upstream has got the patches merged or not. But, I did not find too much information about this. So, I tried JK's branch instead. When you feel that I should try the source on github, please let me know. > Specifically about your question - It's probably unexpected and I'm curious > what processor and version of FBSD this is. The kernel is compiled from 9.0-RC2 (releng/9.0 r227910) with gcc 4.2 that comes with the OS. I cannot give you the 'uname -a' output now because I have just compiled and installed a kernel with clang but I remembered it was updated two days ago before I upgraded from stable/8 to releng/9.0. The CPU is an AMD Athlon II 270u x2 running at 2 GHz. >> >> I also tested it on a fortran code. Here is the runtime result: >> >> 0.923u /usr/local/path64/bin/pathf95 -O3 -LANG:copyinout=ON:recursive=ON >> -OPT:goto=ON >> 1.283u gfortran46 -O3 >> >> I actually compiled gfortran with CLooG-PPL but the optimization flags from >> GRAPHITE does not change the run time of this code. > Am I reading the result correctly that we're faster? You may also want to > add/test -ipa to your flags.. > Yes, this code compiled from pathf95 runs faster than that compiled from gfortran46. It may be more interesting to mention that I also have OpenIndiana 151a installed on the same computer and tested the code with Solaris Studio 12.2. The runtime for the same code compiled with Solaris Studio 12.2 is ~1.0xx u. On OpenIndiana, I have only tested the optimization flags that do not require SUNWprivate_1.5 version of libmtsk.so. All results are checked in those run.
I will try -ipa later and let you know if it makes any difference in runtime. (I think I have already tried that but let me do this again.) > Side notes : > 1) -ipa == LTO in gcc which I don't know if it works at all on FBSD (We > have some linker work that may help this situation in the future) > 2) I don't care what others say - Graphite isn't afaik production ready so > *if* you ever do see any performance gains from it - ensure that you strongly > validate before using in production setup > 3) We've added the latest User Guide online - > http://www.pathscale.com/EKOPath-User-Guide > > Thanks a lot for testing! > > ./C Thank you for making PathScale Compilers open source! ---L_______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
