From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from loongson.cn (mail.loongson.cn [114.242.206.163]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D39F63858407 for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2022 01:05:50 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org D39F63858407 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=loongson.cn Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=loongson.cn Received: from [10.20.4.52] (unknown [10.20.4.52]) by mail.loongson.cn (Coremail) with SMTP id AQAAf9AxSs3qbOxiL_8GAA--.14911S2; Fri, 05 Aug 2022 09:05:46 +0800 (CST) Subject: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IOWbnuWkje+8mltQQVRDSCB2NV0gTG9vbmdBcmNoOiBhZGQgbW92?= =?UTF-8?Q?able_attribute?= To: Xi Ruoyao , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" Cc: Chenghua Xu , Youling Tang , Huacai Chen , Jinyang He , Wang Xuerui References: <9b6b0e68cfb7e87ae961ef8a7bb7987f534da19c.camel@xry111.site> <6cafbcdf79f77b73b9329f3e3a2f24ec85eda94d.camel@xry111.site> <-2muj1c-68saz6jhkcyw3jo1xp-1mgcvnkbqi2wjp6tue-qsso54-emxgu3-k85590-kpgox7-w67u6h3cai1l-5bi887dsgzsu-g4d7i7-wl316qxrucx4kv4on7-mnna36-iremg8-nwc5ot-9041t2-hu8nsl.1659495047941@email.android.com> <90d2f698eaa2ef88712e9aef453b1deff197b533.camel@xry111.site> From: Lulu Cheng Message-ID: <44a2cb6f-b8b2-babb-bfcc-3dd17d8fce42@loongson.cn> Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2022 09:05:46 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux mips64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US X-CM-TRANSID: AQAAf9AxSs3qbOxiL_8GAA--.14911S2 X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvJXoW7Ar1Uuw1fJrykXrWUtF4xZwb_yoW8CFy8pa yj9r13ta1DJr1rCw4Iy3y7XF1jyrs3KFW5J3sak342v34Yq34Ykr1Iya4Y9FZrG3s7Cw18 ZFsI9F13ua4kZrDanT9S1TB71UUUUUUqnTZGkaVYY2UrUUUUjbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy2 9KBjDU0xBIdaVrnRJUUUvI14x267AKxVW8JVW5JwAFc2x0x2IEx4CE42xK8VAvwI8IcIk0 rVWrJVCq3wAFIxvE14AKwVWUJVWUGwA2ocxC64kIII0Yj41l84x0c7CEw4AK67xGY2AK02 1l84ACjcxK6xIIjxv20xvE14v26r1I6r4UM28EF7xvwVC0I7IYx2IY6xkF7I0E14v26r4j 6F4UM28EF7xvwVC2z280aVAFwI0_Cr0_Gr1UM28EF7xvwVC2z280aVCY1x0267AKxVW8Jr 0_Cr1UM2AIxVAIcxkEcVAq07x20xvEncxIr21lYx0E2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Jr0_Jr4lYx0E x4A2jsIE14v26r1j6r4UMcvjeVCFs4IE7xkEbVWUJVW8JwACjcxG0xvEwIxGrwACjI8F5V A0II8E6IAqYI8I648v4I1l7480Y4vEI4kI2Ix0rVAqx4xJMxk0xIA0c2IEe2xFo4CEbIxv r21lc2xSY4AK6svPMxAIw28IcxkI7VAKI48JMxC20s026xCaFVCjc4AY6r1j6r4UMI8I3I 0E5I8CrVAFwI0_JrI_JrWlx2IqxVCjr7xvwVAFwI0_JrI_JrWlx4CE17CEb7AF67AKxVWU AVWUtwCIc40Y0x0EwIxGrwCI42IY6xIIjxv20xvE14v26r1j6r1xMIIF0xvE2Ix0cI8IcV CY1x0267AKxVWUJVW8JwCI42IY6xAIw20EY4v20xvaj40_WFyUJVCq3wCI42IY6I8E87Iv 67AKxVWUJVW8JwCI42IY6I8E87Iv6xkF7I0E14v26r1j6r4UYxBIdaVFxhVjvjDU0xZFpf 9x0JUtkuxUUUUU= X-CM-SenderInfo: xfkh0wpoxo3qxorr0wxvrqhubq/ X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, BODY_8BITS, HTML_MESSAGE, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2022 01:05:54 -0000 I'm working on the implementation of specifing attributes of variables for other architectures. If the address is obtained through the GOT table and 4 instructions, there is not much difference in performance. Is it more reasonable for us to refer to the implementation of the model attribute under the IA64 architecture? I will compare the performance of the two soon. Do you know the approximate release date of GCC 12.2? I also want to fix this before 12.2 is released. Thanks! 在 2022/8/4 下午3:47, Xi Ruoyao 写道: > On Wed, 2022-08-03 at 11:10 +0800, Xi Ruoyao via Gcc-patches wrote: > >>> I'd like to wait for the kernel team to test the performance data of >>> the two implementations before deciding whether to support this >>> attribute. >>> >>> What do you think？ >> Perhaps, I can't access my dev system now anyway (I've configured the >> SSH access but then a sudden power surge happened and I didn't >> configured automatically power on :( ) > Hi folks, > > Can someone perform a bench to see if a four-instruction immediate load > sequence can outperform GOT or vice versa? I cannot access my test > system in at least 1 week, and I may be busy preparing Linux From > Scratch 11.2 release in the remaining of August. > > Note: if the four-instruction immediate load sequence outperforms GOT, > we should consider use immediate load instead of GOT for -fno-PIC by > default. > > P.S. It seems I have trouble accessing gcc400.fsffrance.org. I have a C > Farm account and I've already put > > Host gcc400.fsffrance.org > Port 25465 > > in ~/.ssh/config, and I can access other C farm machines w/o problem. > But: > > $ ssh gcc400.fsffrance.org > xry111@gcc400.fsffrance.org: Permission denied (publickey,keyboard-interactive). > > If you know the administrator of the C farm machine, can you tell him to > check the configuration? If I can access it I may use some time to > perform the bench (in userspace of course) myself. Thanks. >