[MLton] latest benchmarks

[Jesper Louis Andersen]

Yup, that was indeed the problem. With -codegen x86 it runs. I can add the
benchmark results besides yours in the same format in SVN if you like it,
or I can post them here.

It will probably take some time to run anyway.

On 6/21/07, Matthew Fluet <fluet at tti-c.org> wrote:
>
> Jesper Louis Andersen wrote:
> > Hmm, it failed the -codegen native as well as -codegen amd64. I'll
> > investigate further.
>
> For mlton-20051205 (on x86 or x86_64), -codegen native implies using the
> x86 codegen.
>
> For mlton.svn.trunk, -codegen native has been eliminated.
> On x86, -codegen x86 implies using the x86 codegen.
> On amd64, -codegen amd64 implies using the amd64 codegen.
>
> It would be easy to restore the -codegen native option on
> mlton.svn.trunk and choose the appropriate native codegen for the
> architecture.
>
> > On 6/21/07, Jesper Louis Andersen <jesper.louis.andersen at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I have a 32bit FreeBSD compile ready. Benchmarks to trickle in tomorrow
> >> when I
> >> get it to crunch while at work (It takes a fair amount of time for it
> to
> >> finish and I don't
> >> want to mess too much with the laptop while it processes the
> benchmarks).
> >>
> >> There are also a few tweaks needed to run on 64-bit FreeBSD. I hope to
> be
> >> able to
> >> look into them around the 1st of July.
> >>
> >> On 6/20/07, Matthew Fluet <fluet at tti-c.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I've merged the x86_64 branch into trunk.  Since the previous
> >> > announcement of the experimental release, there were only two minor
> >> bugs
> >> > reported:
> >> >   1) Bug with -align 8 on x86_64
> >> >   2) Inconsistent behavior with -const 'MLton.detectOverflow false'
> >> > These have both been fixed, and I'm pretty happy with the state of
> the
> >> > x86_64 port.
> >> >
> >> > I ran the benchmark suite to compare the last public release to the
> >> > current trunk.  It is a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison, since
> I
> >> > ran the benchmarks on an AMD Opteron (64-bit) system.  So, the
> 20051205
> >> > compiler (and its resulting executables) are running in 32-bit mode,
> >> > while the trunk compiler (and its resulting executables) are running
> in
> >> > 64-bit mode.
> >> >
> >> > [BTW, it would be nice if someone could run a corresponding benchmark
> >> > suite on a 32-bit system, for a more apples-to-apples comparison.]
> >> >
> >> > You can see all of the results at:
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> http://mlton.org/cgi-bin/viewsvn.cgi/*checkout*/mlton/trunk/doc/x86_64-port-notes/bench-20070619.txt?rev=5659
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Some of the highlights:
> >> >
> >> > * Benchmarks were run on a uni-core, dual-processor AMD Opteron
> >> 2.0GHz ,
> >> > 8GB Memory, Fedora Core 6 machine (with gcc version 4.1.1 and linux
> >> > version 2.6.20 (x86_64)).
> >> >
> >> > * compile time and code size is up across the board on trunk vs
> >> > 20051205.  I suspect that part of the code size increase can be
> >> > attributed to the comparison of 32-bit executables to 64-bit
> >> > executables.  Any 64-bit operation requires an additional 8bit
> >> > instruction prefix (as do 32-bit ops that touch the extended register
> >> > set).  Compile time is probably partly explained by the bigger Basis
> >> > Library implementation (increasing elaboration time and carrying more
> >> > code through early optimizations), and partly by the fact that the
> >> trunk
> >> > compiler is executing a little slower than the 20051205 compiler.
> >> >
> >> > * recent versions of gcc are doing fairly well with the C
> code.  (Note
> >> > that using -codegen c with 20051205 uses the version of gcc on the
> host
> >> > machine.)  Indeed, the flat-array.sml benchmark needs to be revised,
> as
> >> > gcc recognizes that the inner loop is pure (Overflow exceptions are
> >> > handled within the loop) and unused.  The SSA{,2} optimizer should
> also
> >> > discover that the loop may be optimized, but that is another issue.
> >> > GCC also does fairly well on the checksum benchmark with 20051205,
> >> > though it does horribly on the checksum benchmark with trunk.
> >> > I suspect that the later behavior is due to the fact that on x86_64,
> >> > sequences (arrays/vectors) are indexed by 64-bit integers in the
> >> > primitive operations (sub, update, etc), but indexed by 32-bit
> integers
> >> > in the user code (Array.sub, Array.update, etc. since Int.int
> >> > corresponds to Int32.int ).  Hence, there are quite a few 64/32
> >> > conversions going on.
> >> >
> >> > * I note that with both native codegens and C codegens, with both
> >> > 20051205 and trunk, that -align 8 often has a positive impact on
> >> > runtime, and rarely has a significant negative impact.  This might be
> >> > due to the Opteron memory system.  Aligned reads probably help most
> on
> >> > Real64 intensive benchmarks.
> >> >
> >> > * The amd64 codegen is doing alright as compared to the x86
> codegen.  I
> >> > see at most a factor of 2 slowdown, and a few speedups.  Again, I'm
> not
> >> > sure what real conclusions can be drawn.  Some slowdowns are going
> >> to be
> >> > due to the changes to the runtime and Basis Library since 20051205;
> to
> >> > isolate those, I need a comparison of 20051205 to trunk on a 32-bit
> >> > system.  Some slowdowns are probably going to be due to the sequence
> >> > indexing discussed above.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > MLton mailing list
> >> > MLton at mlton.org
> >> > http://mlton.org/mailman/listinfo/mlton
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > MLton mailing list
> > MLton at mlton.org
> > http://mlton.org/mailman/listinfo/mlton
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mlton.org/pipermail/mlton/attachments/20070621/a3b06c58/attachment.htm