From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from xry111.site (xry111.site [IPv6:2001:470:683e::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E37DF3857007 for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2022 07:47:36 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org E37DF3857007 Received: from [192.168.0.105] (unknown [183.200.25.197]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature ECDSA (P-384)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: xry111@xry111.site) by xry111.site (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A513A65919; Thu, 4 Aug 2022 03:47:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Subject: Re: =?gb2312?Q?=BB=D8=B8=B4=A3=BA=5BPATCH?= v5] LoongArch: add movable attribute From: Xi Ruoyao To: "chenglulu@loongson.cn" , Chenghua Xu , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" Cc: Youling Tang , Huacai Chen , Jinyang He , Wang Xuerui Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2022 15:47:27 +0800 In-Reply-To: <90d2f698eaa2ef88712e9aef453b1deff197b533.camel@xry111.site> 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> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.44.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, BODY_8BITS, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD, LIKELY_SPAM_FROM, PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Level: **** X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org 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: Thu, 04 Aug 2022 07:47:38 -0000 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. > >=20 > > What do you think=EF=BC=9F >=20 > 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.=20 But: $ ssh gcc400.fsffrance.org=20 xry111@gcc400.fsffrance.org: Permission denied (publickey,keyboard-inter= active). =20 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. --=20 Xi Ruoyao School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University