linaro-toolchain

linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org

7 participants
5609 discussions

by Renato Golin

Hi folks, Attached is the Linpack benchmark, which I ran GCC and Clang with and without vectorization (though most of the loops are not vectorized). Reading the output of LLVM loop vectorizer, it also doesn't do much, but the net gain is due to the basic-block vectorizer. Does GCC has a similar concept? The results are also attached. cheers, --renato

12 years, 4 months

[ANNOUNCE] Linaro GCC 4.7 2013.02-01 released.

by Yvan Roux

The Linaro Toolchain Working Group announce the 2013.02-01 Linaro GCC 4.7 release. This is a respin of the 2013.02 release because of an issue with multiarch for x32 and kfreebsd builds in the previous one. Please find the original 2013.02 announcement below. The Linaro Toolchain Working Group is pleased to announce the 2013.02 release of both Linaro GCC 4.7 and Linaro GCC 4.6. Linaro GCC 4.7 2013.02 is the eleventh release in the 4.7 series. Based off the latest GCC 4.7.2+svn195745 release, it includes ARM-focused performance improvements and bug fixes. Interesting changes include: * Updates to GCC 4.7.2+svn195745 * Includes arm/aarch64-4.7-branch up to svn revision 195716 * Support for Cortex-A7 backported from trunk Linaro GCC 4.6 2013.02 is the 24th release in the 4.6 series. Based off the latest GCC 4.6.3+svn195744 release, this is the eleventh release after entering maintenance. Interesting changes include: * Updates to 4.6.3+svn195744 The source tarballs are available from: https://launchpad.net/gcc-linaro/+milestone/4.7-2013.02 https://launchpad.net/gcc-linaro/+milestone/4.6-2013.02 Downloads are available from the Linaro GCC page on Launchpad: https://launchpad.net/gcc-linaro More information on the features and issues are available from the release pages: https://launchpad.net/gcc-linaro/4.7/4.7-2013.02 https://launchpad.net/gcc-linaro/4.6/4.6-2013.02 Mailing list: http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain Bugs: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc-linaro/ Questions? https://ask.linaro.org/

12 years, 4 months

Re: [PATCH] ARM: decompressor: clear SCTLR.A bit for v7 cores

by Michael Hope

On 6 November 2012 02:48, Rob Herring <robherring2(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On 11/05/2012 05:13 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 10:48:50AM +0000, Dave Martin wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 05:08:16PM +0200, Johannes Stezenbach wrote: > >>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 09:25:06AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > >>>> On 10/25/2012 09:16 AM, Johannes Stezenbach wrote: > >>>>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 07:41:45AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > >>>>>> On 10/25/2012 04:34 AM, Johannes Stezenbach wrote: > >>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 07:43:22AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> While v6 can support unaligned accesses, it is optional and current > >>>>>>>> compilers won't emit unaligned accesses. So we don't clear the A bit for > >>>>>>>> v6. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> not true according to the gcc changes page > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What are you going to believe: documentation or what the compiler > >>>>>> emitted? At least for ubuntu/linaro 4.6.3 which has the unaligned access > >>>>>> support backported and 4.7.2, unaligned accesses are emitted for v7 > >>>>>> only. I guess default here means it is the default unless you change the > >>>>>> default in your build of gcc. > >>>>> > >>>>> Since ARMv6 can handle unaligned access in the same way as ARMv7 > >>>>> it seems a clear bug in gcc which might hopefully get fixed. > >>>>> Thus in this case I think it is reasonable to follow the > >>>>> gcc documentation, otherwise the code would break for ARMv6 > >>>>> when gcc gets fixed. > >>>> > >>>> But the compiler can't assume the state of the U bit. I think it is > >>>> still legal on v6 to not support unaligned accesses, but on v7 it is > >>>> required. All the standard v6 ARM cores support it, but I'm not sure > >>>> about custom cores or if there are SOCs with buses that don't support > >>>> unaligned accesses properly. > >>> > >>> Well, I read the "...since Linux version 2.6.28" comment > >>> in the gcc changes page in the way that they assume the > >>> U-bit is set. (Although I'm not sure it really is???) > >> > >> Actually, the kernel checks the arch version and the U bit on boot, > >> and chooses the appropriate setting for the A bit depending on the > >> result. (See arch/arm/mm/alignment.c:alignment_init().) > > > > That is in the kernel itself, _after_ the decompressor has run. It is > > not relevant to any discussion about the decompressor. > > > >> Currently, we depend on the CPU reset behaviour or firmware/ > >> bootloader to set the U bit for v6, but the behaviour should be > >> correct either way, though unaligned accesses will obviously > >> perform (much) better with U=1. > > > > Will someone _PLEASE_ address my initial comments against this patch > > in light of the fact that it's now been proven _NOT_ to be just a V7 > > issue, rather than everyone seemingly buring their heads in the sand > > over this. > > I tried adding -munaligned-accesses on a v6 build and still get byte > accesses rather than unaligned word accesses. So this does seem to be a > v7 only issue based on what gcc will currently produce. Copying Michael > Hope who can hopefully provide some insight on why v6 unaligned accesses > are not enabled. This looks like a bug. Unaligned access is enabled for armv6 but seems to only take effect for cores with Thumb-2. Here's a test case both with unaligned field access and unaligned block copy: struct foo { char a; int b; struct { int x[3]; } c; } __attribute__((packed)); int get_field(struct foo *p) { return p->b; } int copy_block(struct foo *p, struct foo *q) { p->c = q->c; } With -march=armv7-a you get the correct: bar: ldr r0, [r0, #1] @ unaligned @ 11 unaligned_loadsi/2 [length = 4] bx lr @ 21 *arm_return [length = 12] baz: str r4, [sp, #-4]! @ 25 *push_multi [length = 4] mov r2, r0 @ 2 *arm_movsi_vfp/1 [length = 4] ldr r4, [r1, #5]! @ unaligned @ 9 unaligned_loadsi/2 [length = 4] ldr ip, [r1, #4] @ unaligned @ 10 unaligned_loadsi/2 [length = 4] ldr r1, [r1, #8] @ unaligned @ 11 unaligned_loadsi/2 [length = 4] str r4, [r2, #5] @ unaligned @ 12 unaligned_storesi/2 [length = 4] str ip, [r2, #9] @ unaligned @ 13 unaligned_storesi/2 [length = 4] str r1, [r2, #13] @ unaligned @ 14 unaligned_storesi/2 [length = 4] ldmfd sp!, {r4} bx lr With -march=armv6 you get a byte-by-byte field access and a correct unaligned block copy: bar: ldrb r1, [r0, #2] @ zero_extendqisi2 ldrb r3, [r0, #1] @ zero_extendqisi2 ldrb r2, [r0, #3] @ zero_extendqisi2 ldrb r0, [r0, #4] @ zero_extendqisi2 orr r3, r3, r1, asl #8 orr r3, r3, r2, asl #16 orr r0, r3, r0, asl #24 bx lr baz: str r4, [sp, #-4]! mov r2, r0 ldr r4, [r1, #5]! @ unaligned ldr ip, [r1, #4] @ unaligned ldr r1, [r1, #8] @ unaligned str r4, [r2, #5] @ unaligned str ip, [r2, #9] @ unaligned str r1, [r2, #13] @ unaligned ldmfd sp!, {r4} bx lr readelf -A shows that the compiler planned to use unaligned access in both. My suspicion is that GCC is using the extv pattern to extract the field from memory, and that pattern is only enabled for Thumb-2 capable cores. I've logged PR55218. We'll discuss it at our next meeting. -- Michael

12 years, 4 months

[ACTIVITY] 11-15 Feb 2013

by Christophe Lyon

== Progress == * smin-umin: spawned build jobs for gcc-trunk with 'coalesce-vars' patch reverted (from A.Oliva), so that I can then run benchmarks to compare its effect with the one observed on gcc-4.7. * libasan: thanks to Peter, I am able to run sample programs under qemu. Ran GCC testsuite, observed some failures, to be investigated. * vectorizer cost model: committed upstream in 4.8. * Released gcc-linaro-4.6-2013.02 and gcc-linaro-4.7-2013.02. * backported 'turnoff 64 bits ops in Neon' from upstream to gcc-linaro-4.7. Waiting for builds to complete to launch benchmark jobs. * internal tasks == Next == * smin-umin: look at benchmarks results if available * libasan: analyse testsuite results * 64bits ops in Neon; look at benchmarks results if available * get more codec samples Christophe.

12 years, 4 months

[ACTIVITY] 11-15 Feb 2013

by Yvan Roux

== Progress == * February merge 4.6 and 4.7 - Another issue raised by Matthias, fix merged. - The merge request exposed a new failure on i686 (ld seg. fault) which looks like the ones we had on i686 before the release, re-spawned the job to see if we can reproduce. * Boehm GC AArch64 support: - Fixed some defect, identified some cases not implementable by atomic builtins, worked on inline asm versions. - re-installed working environment to be able to test the gcc integration (thanks to Matt) * Aarch64 porting meeting: - No new requirements. == Next == * Review roster. * Boehm GC AArch64 support: - fix libatomic_ops - validate GCC's Boehm gc integration * libunwind aarch64 support: - continue.

12 years, 5 months

[ACTIVITY] 11th Feb 2013 - 15th Feb 2013

by Omair Javaid

== This Week === * Got the remote Pandaboard RootFS updates, Thanks to Dave again. * Got the SSH tunnels going for remote GDB test suite executions, thougt a single remote run takes eternity to complete. * Analysis of GDB test suite log files separated the failures and other test cases which were not passed as for the analysis. * Preliminary analysis done on GDB logs for remote configuration on ARM in comparison with native configuration. == Next week == * Try to complete log file analysis and post results. * Try to run GDB test suite using QEMU. * Follow up on hong kong visa application -- *** Sorry about spamming I got the subject wrong in the first email.

12 years, 5 months

[ACTIVITY] 4th Feb 2013 - 8th Feb 2013

by Omair Javaid

== This Week === * Tried running GDB test suite with QEMU linux user-mode with not much success * Configured Pandaboard and ran GDB test suite in native and native-gdbserver configurations. * More of office setup and purchase of some bits and pieces * Gateway set up and Pandaboard access finally worked after some help from Dave and Matt. * Finally purchased Ticket for the Connect and also filled visa application * Attended Weekly toolchain call * Still suffering from a bad run of cough n flu, done with antibiotics now. * Public Holiday on 5th Feburary == Next week == * Continue with Analysis of GDB status on ARM in different configurations possible. * SSH tunnels and port forwarding setup to gateway and lab for smooth access. * Follow up on hong kong visa application

12 years, 5 months

[ACTIVITY] 11-15 Feb 2013

by Venkataramanan Kumar

== Progress == * Implementing GC sections support in binutils Wrote a patch to update some AARCH64 GOT and PLT symbol ref counts while sweeping sections. During "make ld-check" some tests are not running. Checking the issue. Discussed with Matt and decided to use default gc_mark hook. Most ports care BFD_RELOC_VTABLE_INHERIT and BFD_RELOC_VTABLE_ENTRY relocs during gc section marking. Now these relocs are not supported in AARCH64. * Analysis on jump threading in GCC Switch cases are not lowered in GCC till RTL expand stage. Looking at a patch on lowering switch to GIMPLE and see jump threading behaves. Misc ------ * Attend tool chain weekly meet, and stand up call * Had a look at one x86_64 related GCC build error. == Next week == * Continue Implementing GC sections support in binutils and test the patch. * Continue analysis on jump threading in GCC. Planning to look at Tree VRP as per Andrew pinski suggestion.

12 years, 5 months

Hard Floating Point Question

by Derek Rollend

Hello, I am currently trying to determine how much I can optimize OpenCV using the ARM's VFP and the Linaro nano image. I have downloaded the arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc & arm-linux-gnueabihf-g++ compilers, successfully cross-compiled OpenCV using those compilers (with -O3 -mfloat-abi=hard -ftree-vectorize -funroll-loops), and compiled an example OpenCV program with the arm-linux-gnueabihf-g++ compiler (with the same flags). However, when I try and run my executable within Linaro (running on a gumstix overo) I get "/lib/arm-linux-gnueabihf/libm.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.15' not found (required by /usr/lib/libopencv_core.so.2.2). I assume that this is because on my build machine (x86 Ubuntu 10.04) where I cross compiled the OpenCV libraries I am using libc-2.15, and on the target (gumstix) the loader can't find libc-2.15. However, within the gcc-linaro-arm-linux-gnueabihf-4.7 tar ball I downloaded today, there is a libc-2.15.so file in there that I copied into /lib/ on the gumstix. Still no success though when I try running my executable. Any recommendations on things to try? I am hesitant to just put a newer version of glibc in Linaro as it seems like that could screw a lot of things up. Should I attempt to re-build OpenCV somehow with an older version of glibc (namely libc-2.13)? Also, please let me know if this is the wrong forum for this question and where I should post it instead. Thanks, Derek

12 years, 5 months

[ACTIVITY] 11 - 15 Feb

by Kugan Vivekanandarajah

== Progress == -Spawned CBUILD tasks with and without the patch proposed by Chung-Lin Tang to test current status of "Fix EPILOGUE_USES regression in CoreMark". Job is still in the queue. -Read references listed in gcc/ira.c to understand gcc IRA and went through the source code. -Experimented with simple test cases to analyse IRA debug output. == Plan for next week == - Analyse CoreMark results if ready and work on improvements. - Start with research for Removing unnecessary zero/sign extends when not working on "Fix EPILOGUE_USES regression in CoreMark.

12 years, 5 months

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

linaro-toolchain