This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH][AArch64] Model CSEL instruction in Cortex-A57 scheduling model
- From: James Greenhalgh <james dot greenhalgh at arm dot com>
- To: Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana dot radhakrishnan at foss dot arm dot com>
- Cc: Kyrill Tkachov <kyrylo dot tkachov at foss dot arm dot com>, 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: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 09:28:10 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH][AArch64] Model CSEL instruction in Cortex-A57 scheduling model
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Nodisclaimer: True
- References: <5755A061 dot 1000909 at foss dot arm dot com> <5756842D dot 6010606 at foss dot arm dot com>
- Spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
- Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 09:22:05AM +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
>
>
> On 06/06/16 17:10, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > This small patch adds handling of the CSEL-type instructions to the Cortex-A57 scheduling model.
> > It is treated the same as simple ALU instructions.
> >
> > With this patch I didn't see any overall differences in SPEC2006.
> >
> > Bootstrapped and tested on arm-none-linux-gnueabihf and aarch64-linux-gnu.
> >
> > Ok for trunk?
> >
> > The patch is very simple and the csel value isn't used in any arm instructions so I think
> > just an aarch64 approval for this should be enough.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Kyrill
> >
>
> This is ok by me - in these sorts of situations I think we should let the
> aarch64 approvals be sufficient.
I agree. I don't think the folder in which the file resides is the most
important thing, it is the intent and risk of the patch that matters.
This patch is OK for AArch64.
Thanks,
James
> > 2016-06-06 Kyrylo Tkachov <kyrylo.tkachov@arm.com>
> >
> > * config/arm/cortex-a57.md (cortex_a57_alu):
> > Handle csel type.
>