From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23576 invoked by alias); 27 Feb 2019 10:57:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 23563 invoked by uid 89); 27 Feb 2019 10:57:06 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=tkachov, kyrill, Tkachov, Kyrill X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 10:57:05 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15FA8806B4; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 10:57:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (ovpn-117-64.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.117.64]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 292A861981; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 10:57:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x1RAv0KK006697; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 11:57:00 +0100 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id x1RAuwfG006696; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 11:56:58 +0100 Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 11:21:00 -0000 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Kyrill Tkachov Cc: Richard Earnshaw , Ramana Radhakrishnan , James Greenhalgh , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improve arm and aarch64 casesi (PR target/70341) Message-ID: <20190227105658.GN7611@tucnak> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <20190223002051.GL7611@tucnak> <764e7bd6-a566-3b00-eaff-4b7914166464@foss.arm.com> <20190225101909.GV7611@tucnak> <42fdb446-ec5a-a877-a1d7-c51049f6ac98@foss.arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <42fdb446-ec5a-a877-a1d7-c51049f6ac98@foss.arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-02/txt/msg02048.txt.bz2 On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 10:23:52AM +0000, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > > The only bootstraps I'm doing are distro builds with > > --with-tune=generic-armv7-a --with-arch=armv7-a \ > > --with-float=hard --with-fpu=vfpv3-d16 --with-abi=aapcs-linux > > I don't have setup nor experience with configuring anything else, don't > > really know what is and what isn't ABI compatible etc. > > Isn't --with-mode=arm the default with the above set of options? Can > > --with-mode=thumb be used ABI compatibly with that, or is that incompatible? > > > They are ABI-compatible. Running the testsuite with -mthumb in RUNTESTFLAGS > would also be enough in this case if you don't have the cycles for a > bootstrap. Ok, so tried to do two distro builds with the above plus --with-mode=thumb, one without the casesi patch, the other one with that. Both bootstrapped successfully, but dunno why the regtests were too slow to fit under our hard 2 days timeout limit. When I grabbed the build logs, the only difference in the grep ^FAIL | sort -u lines was one fewer go failure with the patch (but that is most likely a random failure rather than the patch actually changing anything). Is -mthumb generally slower than ARM mode? Anyway, I'm afraid this is as far as I can go in my testing. Jakub