== GCC ==
* Checked in patch to change vector alignment to 8
to GCC mainline.
* Started investigating benchmark regressions with
Linaro GCC 4.7 backport of vector alignment patch.
== GDB ==
* Checked in patch to fix hardware breakpoints on
non-4-byte aligned (Thumb) instructions.
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 01:03:38PM +0100, Mans Rullgard wrote:
>
>If directly examining the attributes section is out of the question,
>perhaps the e_flags field would be a better option than OSABI, being
>clearly designated as a collection of flags and also having more bits
>currently unused.
Tha
On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 09:20:35PM +0100, Mans Rullgard wrote:
>On 2 August 2012 20:26, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
>>
>> This solution obviously still requires all programs to be
>> recompiled before they present the new program header.
>
>Steve's proposal also requires recompiling everything, so there
On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 09:26:56PM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
>Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
>> >I really think the only sane thing to do is fix glibc so it can fetch
>> >the attributes from their standard locations.
>>
>> I've already proposed (and written code for) that, and they refused to
>> accept
Current Milestones:
|| || Planned|| Estimate || Actual ||
||cp15-rework || 2012-01-06 || 2012-06-23 || 2012-06-24 ||
||a15-lpae-support || 2012-07-13 || 2012-07-20 || 2012-07-20 ||
||clean-up-kvm-patches ||||||
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 03/08/12 13:49, Mans Rullgard wrote:
>> I have noticed gcc has a preference for generating UXTB instructions
>> when an AND with #255 would do the same thing. This is bad, because
>> on A9 UXTB has two cycles latency compared to one cyc
On 3 August 2012 13:53, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 03/08/12 13:49, Mans Rullgard wrote:
>> I have noticed gcc has a preference for generating UXTB instructions
>> when an AND with #255 would do the same thing. This is bad, because
>> on A9 UXTB has two cycles latency compared to one cycle for A
On 03/08/12 13:49, Mans Rullgard wrote:
> I have noticed gcc has a preference for generating UXTB instructions
> when an AND with #255 would do the same thing. This is bad, because
> on A9 UXTB has two cycles latency compared to one cycle for AND. On
> A8 both instructions have one cycle latency.
I have noticed gcc has a preference for generating UXTB instructions
when an AND with #255 would do the same thing. This is bad, because
on A9 UXTB has two cycles latency compared to one cycle for AND. On
A8 both instructions have one cycle latency.
--
Mans Rullgard / mru
_
On 3 August 2012 12:48, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 01:11:23PM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
>>Perhaps this was brought up before, but is there an use case for mixing
>>ABIs in the same ELF file? For instance, one could implement a portable
>>ARM EABI binary not calling any float
On 3 August 2012 12:00, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 02/08/12 18:39, Mans Rullgard wrote:
>> Nevertheless, the tags in the .ARM.attributes section are the standard,
>> published way to identify FP ABI as well as a number of other properties
>> that might be relevant to a linker.
>
> 1) The attribu
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 01:11:23PM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
>Perhaps this was brought up before, but is there an use case for mixing
>ABIs in the same ELF file? For instance, one could implement a portable
>ARM EABI binary not calling any float function but just dlopen()ing this
>or that library
Perhaps this was brought up before, but is there an use case for mixing
ABIs in the same ELF file? For instance, one could implement a portable
ARM EABI binary not calling any float function but just dlopen()ing this
or that library depending on which ABI variant it detects.
(It's an unlikely sce
On 02/08/12 18:39, Mans Rullgard wrote:
> Nevertheless, the tags in the .ARM.attributes section are the standard,
> published way to identify FP ABI as well as a number of other properties
> that might be relevant to a linker.
1) The attributes only visible in the section view (as used by linkable
14 matches
Mail list logo
