Yup, that was indeed the problem. With -codegen x86 it runs. I can add the <br>benchmark results besides yours in the same format in SVN if you like it,<br>or I can post them here.<br><br>It will probably take some time to run anyway.
<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 6/21/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Matthew Fluet</b> <<a href="mailto:fluet@tti-c.org">fluet@tti-c.org</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Jesper Louis Andersen wrote:<br>> Hmm, it failed the -codegen native as well as -codegen amd64. I'll<br>> investigate further.<br><br>For mlton-20051205 (on x86 or x86_64), -codegen native implies using the<br>x86 codegen.
<br><br>For mlton.svn.trunk, -codegen native has been eliminated.<br>On x86, -codegen x86 implies using the x86 codegen.<br>On amd64, -codegen amd64 implies using the amd64 codegen.<br><br>It would be easy to restore the -codegen native option on
<br>mlton.svn.trunk and choose the appropriate native codegen for the<br>architecture.<br><br>> On 6/21/07, Jesper Louis Andersen <<a href="mailto:jesper.louis.andersen@gmail.com">jesper.louis.andersen@gmail.com</a>
> wrote:<br>>><br>>> I have a 32bit FreeBSD compile ready. Benchmarks to trickle in tomorrow<br>>> when I<br>>> get it to crunch while at work (It takes a fair amount of time for it to<br>>> finish and I don't
<br>>> want to mess too much with the laptop while it processes the benchmarks).<br>>><br>>> There are also a few tweaks needed to run on 64-bit FreeBSD. I hope to be<br>>> able to<br>>> look into them around the 1st of July.
<br>>><br>>> On 6/20/07, Matthew Fluet <<a href="mailto:fluet@tti-c.org">fluet@tti-c.org</a>> wrote:<br>>> ><br>>> > I've merged the x86_64 branch into trunk. Since the previous<br>
>> > announcement of the experimental release, there were only two minor<br>>> bugs<br>>> > reported:<br>>> > 1) Bug with -align 8 on x86_64<br>>> > 2) Inconsistent behavior with -const '
MLton.detectOverflow false'<br>>> > These have both been fixed, and I'm pretty happy with the state of the<br>>> > x86_64 port.<br>>> ><br>>> > I ran the benchmark suite to compare the last public release to the
<br>>> > current trunk. It is a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison, since I<br>>> > ran the benchmarks on an AMD Opteron (64-bit) system. So, the 20051205<br>>> > compiler (and its resulting executables) are running in 32-bit mode,
<br>>> > while the trunk compiler (and its resulting executables) are running in<br>>> > 64-bit mode.<br>>> ><br>>> > [BTW, it would be nice if someone could run a corresponding benchmark
<br>>> > suite on a 32-bit system, for a more apples-to-apples comparison.]<br>>> ><br>>> > You can see all of the results at:<br>>> ><br>>> ><br>>> <a href="http://mlton.org/cgi-bin/viewsvn.cgi/*checkout*/mlton/trunk/doc/x86_64-port-notes/bench-20070619.txt?rev=5659">
http://mlton.org/cgi-bin/viewsvn.cgi/*checkout*/mlton/trunk/doc/x86_64-port-notes/bench-20070619.txt?rev=5659</a><br>>><br>>> ><br>>> > Some of the highlights:<br>>> ><br>>> > * Benchmarks were run on a uni-core, dual-processor AMD Opteron
<br>>> 2.0GHz ,<br>>> > 8GB Memory, Fedora Core 6 machine (with gcc version 4.1.1 and linux<br>>> > version 2.6.20 (x86_64)).<br>>> ><br>>> > * compile time and code size is up across the board on trunk vs
<br>>> > 20051205. I suspect that part of the code size increase can be<br>>> > attributed to the comparison of 32-bit executables to 64-bit<br>>> > executables. Any 64-bit operation requires an additional 8bit
<br>>> > instruction prefix (as do 32-bit ops that touch the extended register<br>>> > set). Compile time is probably partly explained by the bigger Basis<br>>> > Library implementation (increasing elaboration time and carrying more
<br>>> > code through early optimizations), and partly by the fact that the<br>>> trunk<br>>> > compiler is executing a little slower than the 20051205 compiler.<br>>> ><br>>> > * recent versions of gcc are doing fairly well with the C code. (Note
<br>>> > that using -codegen c with 20051205 uses the version of gcc on the host<br>>> > machine.) Indeed, the flat-array.sml benchmark needs to be revised, as<br>>> > gcc recognizes that the inner loop is pure (Overflow exceptions are
<br>>> > handled within the loop) and unused. The SSA{,2} optimizer should also<br>>> > discover that the loop may be optimized, but that is another issue.<br>>> > GCC also does fairly well on the checksum benchmark with 20051205,
<br>>> > though it does horribly on the checksum benchmark with trunk.<br>>> > I suspect that the later behavior is due to the fact that on x86_64,<br>>> > sequences (arrays/vectors) are indexed by 64-bit integers in the
<br>>> > primitive operations (sub, update, etc), but indexed by 32-bit integers<br>>> > in the user code (Array.sub, Array.update, etc. since <a href="http://Int.int">Int.int</a><br>>> > corresponds to
<a href="http://Int32.int">Int32.int</a> ). Hence, there are quite a few 64/32<br>>> > conversions going on.<br>>> ><br>>> > * I note that with both native codegens and C codegens, with both<br>
>> > 20051205 and trunk, that -align 8 often has a positive impact on<br>>> > runtime, and rarely has a significant negative impact. This might be<br>>> > due to the Opteron memory system. Aligned reads probably help most on
<br>>> > Real64 intensive benchmarks.<br>>> ><br>>> > * The amd64 codegen is doing alright as compared to the x86 codegen. I<br>>> > see at most a factor of 2 slowdown, and a few speedups. Again, I'm not
<br>>> > sure what real conclusions can be drawn. Some slowdowns are going<br>>> to be<br>>> > due to the changes to the runtime and Basis Library since 20051205; to<br>>> > isolate those, I need a comparison of 20051205 to trunk on a 32-bit
<br>>> > system. Some slowdowns are probably going to be due to the sequence<br>>> > indexing discussed above.<br>>> ><br>>> ><br>>> ><br>>> > _______________________________________________
<br>>> > MLton mailing list<br>>> > <a href="mailto:MLton@mlton.org">MLton@mlton.org</a><br>>> > <a href="http://mlton.org/mailman/listinfo/mlton">http://mlton.org/mailman/listinfo/mlton</a><br>
>> ><br>>> ><br>>><br>><br>><br>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> MLton mailing list
<br>> <a href="mailto:MLton@mlton.org">MLton@mlton.org</a><br>> <a href="http://mlton.org/mailman/listinfo/mlton">http://mlton.org/mailman/listinfo/mlton</a><br><br></blockquote></div><br>