On 11/19/12 12:11, Eric Niebler wrote:
On 11/19/2012 8:38 AM, Larry Evans wrote:
On 11/19/12 10:19, Larry Evans wrote: [snip]
In contrast to the gcc4_8 compiler, with the clangxx compiler, the relative qualitative performance, is just the opposite. IOW, the bcon12_horizontal implementation is faster than the bcon12_vertical implementation. In fact, the rate of change of the performance difference accelerates as tree depth goes from 2 to 4. The rate of change is so stark that it suggests, at least to me, there may be some bug in clang. Of course that conclusion is based on almost no knowledge, on my part, of the clang implementation.
The tuple_benchmark_filt.py can be modified to filter out other parts of the benchmark run output, which is here:
http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/variadic_templates/sandbox/slim/test/...
For example, when the filter criteria restricts TUPLE_UNROLL_MAX to 10 (the same as TUPLE_SIZE), then, with compiler=clangxx, bcon12_vertical performs relatively better than bcon12_horizontal as TREE_DEPTH increases, as shown in the attached.
All the measured times are below one second. Benchmarks become more meaningful when the thing being measured takes more than a few seconds to finish. If you don't mind, can you step up the limits? Once we have a few data points in the tens of seconds and minutes, we'll have a better idea of how the different compilers are performing.
Thanks for doing these. It's very interesting.
OK. I just changed TREE_DEPTH=2 to 7 by 1. The run.txt and filt.txt files are attached. AFAICT, vertical always does better than vertical no matter what the compiler; however, the change is more dramatic for clangxx. For gcc4_8 horizontal/vertical=about 2 at TREE_DEPTH=7. OTOH, for clangxx, the ratio is about 16! I've no idea why. -regards, Larry