This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH][AArch64] Add initial support for Cortex-A73
- From: James Greenhalgh <james dot greenhalgh at arm dot com>
- To: Kyrill Tkachov <kyrylo dot tkachov at foss dot arm dot com>
- Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Marcus Shawcroft <marcus dot shawcroft at arm dot com>, Richard Earnshaw <Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com>, <nd at arm dot com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 09:17:04 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH][AArch64] Add initial support for Cortex-A73
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Nodisclaimer: True
- References: <5755A250 dot 9050609 at foss dot arm dot com> <5769637F dot 8090603 at foss dot arm dot com> <20160621163738 dot GA18381 at arm dot com> <576A4869 dot 8050501 at foss dot arm dot com>
- Spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
- Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 09:12:25AM +0100, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> On 21/06/16 17:38, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> >On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 04:55:43PM +0100, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> >>Hi all,
> >>
> >>This is a rebase of https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-06/msg00403.html
> >>on top of Evandro's changes.
> >>Also, to elaborate on the original posting, the initial tuning structure is
> >>based on the Cortex-A57 one but with the issue rate set to 2, FMA steering
> >>turned off and ADRP+LDR fusion enabled.
> >I see you've also chosen to use the generic_branch_cost costs for
> >branches. As you didn't mention it explicitly here, was that intentional?
> >
>
> Ah, that was copied from the Cortex-a72 tuning. I didn't spend any time
> experimenting with it. generic_branch_costs should be good enough for the
> initial enablement. I can change it to cortexa57_branch_cost if you'd like.
> Or we can do it separately later (I suspect Cortex-A72 should use those costs
> too.)
Yes, I'm more than happy for it to be a follow-up. We'll probably need
to revisit the settings for a few of the cores once the if-convert cost
model changes I've been working on go in anyway.
Thanks again,
James