This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH, AARCH64] add qdf24xx tuning structure


On 28 June 2016 at 10:21, Kyrill Tkachov <kyrylo.tkachov@foss.arm.com> wrote:
>
> On 28/06/16 02:03, Jim Wilson wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 3:01 AM, Kyrill Tkachov
>> <kyrylo.tkachov@foss.arm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Jim,
>>>
>>> On 10/06/16 23:48, Jim Wilson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This adds a tuning structure for qdf24xx.  This was tested with an
>>>> aarch64-linux bootstrap and a make check, with no regressions.  I also
>>>> tested it with an x86_64-linux C make check to verify that I didn't
>>>> break the testsuite for non aarch64 targets.
>>>
>>>
>>> As this also changes code in the arm backend
>>> it also needs a bootstrap and test on an arm target
>>> (arm-none-linux-gnueabihf for example).
>>> Can you please confirm that this passes successfully?
>>
>> Yes, I forgot to do the bootstrap and make check on arm.
>>
>> I tried to do that testing, and ran into problems with the armv8-a
>> assembler warning
>>      IT blocks containing 32-bit Thumb instructions are deprecated in
>> ARMv8
>> which messed up my testsuite results so much that they were unusable.
>
>
> Yes, that's PR 67591. For these purposes I usually configure with
I'm looking at this. Progress is slow as I keep being distracted.

Christophe

> something like --with-cpu=cortex-a15 unless I'm actually testing
> ARMv8-A functionality.
>
>> I had to rerun the tests to workaround that, and then got distracted
>> by other problems, but I have now done an armhf bootstrap and make
>> check with unpatched (cortex-a57) and patched (qdf24xx) trees and got
>> the same results.
>
>
> Thanks. That's ok arm-wise.
>
> Kyrill
>
>
>>
>> During the delay, the aarch64 tuning structure changed how the recip
>> square root approx is handled, so I had to make a trivial change to my
>> patch to compensate for that, and then redo the aarch64 bootstrap to
>> make sure it was still OK.  The new patch is attached, which otherwise
>> the same as the previous patch.  I'm assuming this is still OK to
>> install, as the previous patch was approved pending test results, but
>> will wait a bit in case someone ones to object.
>>
>> Jim
>
>


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]