instruction on how to run polymerpar

I saw the instruction in the Polygeist-Script project (https://github.com/wsmoses/Polygeist-Script/):

polymerpar)
      mlir-clang $CFLAGS $TEST.c -o $TEST.$TOOL.in.mlir
      
      polymer-opt --demote-loop-reduction \
           --extract-scop-stmt \
           --pluto-opt='parallelize=1' \
           --inline \
           --canonicalize $TEST.$TOOL.in.mlir 2>/dev/null > $TEST.$TOOL.out.mlir

      mlir-opt -mem2reg -detect-reduction -mem2reg -canonicalize -affine-parallelize -lower-affine -convert-scf-to-openmp -convert-scf-to-std -convert-openmp-to-llvm $TEST.$TOOL.out.mlir | mlir-translate -mlir-to-llvmir > $OUT
      ;;

and I used the almost same instruction to run the mlir file but used updated polymer(e87c27c36b3d346612e505a1b5d7939e6b6aeb41 updated on 2022.1.3)

./bin/polymer-opt --demote-loop-reduction --extract-scop-stmt --pluto-opt='parallelize=1' --inline --canonicalize in.mlir 2>/dev/null > out.mlir
 mlir-opt -affine-parallelize -lower-affine -convert-scf-to-openmp -convert-scf-to-std -convert-openmp-to-llvm out.mlir | mlir-translate -mlir-to-llvmir > out.ll

Then I got a quiet different polyhedral optimization results and it was running nearly 8 times slower.
Is there any mistake here ?

Compare the Polygeist-Script polymerpar command with the commands used for in.mlir, out.mlir, and out.ll, including the omitted passes and the referenced polymer commit e87c27c36b3d346612e505a1b5d7939e6b6aeb41. Reproduce both pipelines and compare their generated MLIR, LLVM IR, and runtime; done means identifying the cause of the different optimization results or documenting that it cannot be reproduced.