From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 104677 invoked by alias); 27 Feb 2019 14:43:07 -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 104662 invoked by uid 89); 27 Feb 2019 14:43:07 -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 autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=H*f:sk:764e7bd, H*f:sk:42fdb44, Hx-languages-length:1614, our X-HELO: foss.arm.com Received: from usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (HELO foss.arm.com) (217.140.101.70) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 14:43:06 +0000 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C414374; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 06:43:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.2.206.47] (e120808-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.2.206.47]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 132A63F703; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 06:43:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improve arm and aarch64 casesi (PR target/70341) To: Jakub Jelinek Cc: Richard Earnshaw , Ramana Radhakrishnan , James Greenhalgh , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" References: <20190223002051.GL7611@tucnak> <764e7bd6-a566-3b00-eaff-4b7914166464@foss.arm.com> <20190225101909.GV7611@tucnak> <42fdb446-ec5a-a877-a1d7-c51049f6ac98@foss.arm.com> <20190227105658.GN7611@tucnak> From: Kyrill Tkachov Message-ID: <7f5fb4f2-9976-7980-90e6-d4fb12185be3@foss.arm.com> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 15:03:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190227105658.GN7611@tucnak> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2019-02/txt/msg02058.txt.bz2 Hi Jakub, On 2/27/19 10:56 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > 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. As discussed on IRC, I've bootstrapped and tested this on arm-none-linux-gnueabihf. So from an arm perspective this looks good (but you'll need an aarch64 ok for that component). Thanks, Kyrill > > Jakub