Michael Hope wrote:
> I know that Dhrystone isn't a very good benchmark, but it's still interesting:
> https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/Benchmarks/Dhrystone
>
Michael,
We can use 'opannotate --assembly' to get profiling results in details,
like how many events hit on a certain inst
I know that Dhrystone isn't a very good benchmark, but it's still interesting:
https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/Benchmarks/Dhrystone
If we can get twice the performance out of strcpy() and memcpy() then
the Dhrystone result should go up by almost 30 %. It would make a
nice headlin
Hi Andrew. I'm confused - apart from a few differences, our methods
seem to be the same.
The differences against Method 1 are:
1. Every revision has an associated ticket
2. There's a bot that automatically creates a ticket per revision
3. Final upstream status is tracked through the status fie
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 11:00:13 +0100
Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 16 August 2010 23:07, Michael Hope wrote:
> > -- Julian Brown
> > == GCC 4.5 vectorization improvements ==
> >
> > * Started tracking down the causes of some failures in vect.exp:
> > pr43430-1.c failed because of missing vector compa
On 17/08/10 10:39, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
> I really wanted this done weeks ago (when I originally implemented it),
> so I'm now getting frustrated that every time it looks like we're
> getting somewhere, it seems to have gone off on a tangent and lost sight
> of all the original requirements.:(
In
On 17 August 2010 12:11, Julian Brown wrote:
> OK, thanks for letting me know. Do you know if ARM is working on
> patches addressing both those failures, or only one of them?
ARM is specifically working on improving the widening support for
Neon and any associated test failures because of that an
(Re-sending to linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org, since I
accidentally haven't been subscribed to that. Whoops!)
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 11:00:13 +0100
Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 16 August 2010 23:07, Michael Hope wrote:
> > -- Julian Brown
> > == GCC 4.5 vectorization improvements ==
> >
> > * Sta
On 17/08/10 10:39, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
> I'm going to write a "method 2" to explain what I need/want.
Now done:
https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/PatchTracking#Method%202
Andrew
___
linaro-toolchain mailing list
linaro-toolchain@lists.li
On 16 August 2010 23:07, Michael Hope wrote:
> -- Julian Brown
> == GCC 4.5 vectorization improvements ==
>
> * Started tracking down the causes of some failures in vect.exp:
> pr43430-1.c failed because of missing vector comparison support. This
> seemed relatively straightforward to implement u
On 17/08/10 00:23, Michael Hope wrote:
> Thoughts?
This isn't what we discussed at all
Yes, keeping a bug open to track work begun upstream is probably a good
policy, but it's not at all what we were discussing.
The patch tracker should ensure that all revisions in the bzr branch are
subm
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010, Michael Hope wrote:
> Thoughts?
Looks good!
--
Loïc Minier
___
linaro-toolchain mailing list
linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
Hi
I'm concerned that the workaround for apr was just uploaded in the form
of disabling process shared mutexes (see LP #599874), but we didn't
address or investigate the root cause in eglibc.
Would someone be able to look at LP #604753 where the issue is tracked?
Thanks!
--
Loïc
12 matches
Mail list logo
