On 14 November 2014 10:50, James Greenhalgh <james.greenha...@arm.com> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 10:42:27AM +0000, Andrew Pinski wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 2:35 AM, James Greenhalgh >> <james.greenha...@arm.com> wrote: >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > We currently do not set any interesting default values for jump and >> > function >> > alignment in AArch64. I've made the formula for these values derive from >> > the issue rate of the processor as so: >> > >> > jumps: 4 * processor issue-rate (rounded down to nearest power of two) >> > functions: 4 * processor issue-rate (rounded up to nearest power of two) >> > >> > This is sensible for the ARMv8-a implementations I tested on. An >> > alternative patch would make these values new fields in the tuning >> > tables. >> >> I had submitted an alternative patch a few hours ago which allows the >> tuning structure say what alignment is wanted for all three: >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg01615.html > > D'oh! I should have flicked through gcc-patches before hitting send! > I imagine I'm encoding similar logic to that you used when writing > this patch. > > I'm happy with either approach, so I'll leave it to the maintainers to > decide which they prefer.
I think Andrews approach of making it adjustable per core makes sense. Andrew can you split the alignment part of your patch from the fusion part of your patch? Cheers /Marcus
