On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 11:25:08AM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> [expanding CC to include others who may be interested in this]
>
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 04:57:02PM -0600, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > This seems like a tricky extension to deploy to the operating
> > system.
> >
>
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 12:05:54PM +0100, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Andrew Stubbs wrote on 21.02.2012 11:56:07:
>
> > I'm not sure, but I believe that the compiler requires (prefers) any
> > structs that you want included inside packed structs to be themselves
> > packed, so you can end up with som
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 06:59:53PM +0100, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> "V, Aneesh" wrote:
>
> > I agree that not marking the assembly functions ' %function' is a problem
> > in the code, so it's not a critical bug. But I would've been happier if
> > the linker refused to link it rather than branching
On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 04:47:08PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Richard Sandiford writes:
> > Dave Martin writes:
> >> Another way of doing a similar thing is to mark __mylib_constructor
> >> as undefined in all the objects that make up the library.
> >>
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:40 AM, Tom Gall wrote:
> > I probably know the answer to this already but ...
> >
> > For shared libs one can define and use something like:
> >
> > void __attribute__ ((constructor)) my_init(void);
> > void __attribute__ ((destructor)) my_fini(void);
> >
> > Which of co
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 09:43:01PM +0700, tknv wrote:
> This issue happend,when I was compiling ARM kernel.
> I could not get it where -Werror gets overriden in tools/perf.
> Could you tell me where is it ?
In tools/perf/Makefile:
34:# Define WERROR=0 to disable treating any warnings as errors.
6
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 02:09:29AM +0700, tknv wrote:
> Sorry for lacking information.
> I would like to explain again.
> When I compile kernel with gcc-4.4.3 and remove Werror from Makefile of
> top of kernel tree, then no warnings to error.
> When using gcc version 4.6.1 (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.6.1-9ubu
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 08:28:53AM +1300, Michael Hope wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 6:51 AM, Dave Martin wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 09:41:52PM +0700, tknv wrote:
> >> Thank you very much, quick reply.
> >> Yes, It is right," it may be better to imp
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 09:41:52PM +0700, tknv wrote:
> Thank you very much, quick reply.
> Yes, It is right," it may be better to improve the code instead of turning of
> the error check."
> But this time I would like to testing some modules at first even any
> warnings occur at other modules.
>
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 04:00:58PM +1300, Michael Hope wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:10 AM, Dave Martin wrote:
> > Defining a macro seems to eat up about half a megabyte of memory,
> > due to the excessively large size of the macro arguments hash table
> > (large enough
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 01:54:44PM +0700, tknv wrote:
> Hello,When I compile armel kernel by gcc4.6 on Linux du
> 3.0.0-12-generic-pae #20-Ubuntu SMP Fri Oct 7 16:37:17 UTC 2011 i686
> i686 i386 GNU/Linux.
> tknv@du:~$ arm-linux-gnueabi-gcc -v
> Using built-in specs.
> COLLECT_GCC=arm-linux-gnueabi
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 01:14:51PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 22 November 2011 13:06, Jubi Taneja wrote:
> > I am using arch/arm/configs/vexpress_defconfig to configure and build Linux
> > Kernel 3.1.1
> > http://launchpad.net/linux-linaro/3.1/3.1-2011.11/+download/linux-linaro-3.1-2011.11-0
Defining a macro seems to eat up about half a megabyte of memory,
due to the excessively large size of the macro arguments hash table
(large enough for 65537 entries by default).
As a result, gas memory consumption becomes rather huge when a
modestly large number (hundreds) of macros are defined.
cussing it upstream.
Cheers
---Dave
Dave Martin (1):
gas: Allow for a more sensible number of macro arguments
gas/as.c | 17 +
gas/doc/as.texinfo |9 -
gas/hash.c |5 +++--
gas/hash.h |1 +
gas/macro.c
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Dave Martin writes:
>> However, there's not really anything fundamentally
>> architecture-specific about this problem, and ideally the solution and
>> the directives should not be architecture-specific e
Hi all,
On ARM, we've now hit the problem a few times of temporarily
overriding the assembler state (or rather, not being able to do this
reliably). For example, sometimes there's a need to assemble a few
instructions for a different architecture version so we can optionally
execute or skip them
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 11:34:59AM +0800, mins@globalunichip.com wrote:
> Hi,
> I used Linaro cross-toolchain version 4.5
> (gcc-4.5-arm-linux-gnueabi) to compile linux-linaro-11.05 for beagle
> board,
> but got the following error messages:
>
>
> AS arch/arm/boot
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:45 AM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jul 2011, Michael Hope wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Michael Hope
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Nicolas Pitre
>> > wrote:
>> >> Hello Michael,
>> >>
>> >> We do have more and more instances of the
See the following commit in binutils trunk.
If this is causing problems in other places, it could be worth
considering for backport into the linaro tools.
Cheers
---Dave
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12931
--- Comment #3 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-29 16:29:43
Hi Michael,
This thread about how to generate ancillary sections using gas has
resurfaced again. Do you know who might be available from the
toolchain group to take a look at this?
It appears that this issue can best be solved by a change to gas
(or, possibly, to gcc).
Cheers
---Dave
Referenc
t;
> -- Forwarded message --
> Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 12:16:48 +
> From: Dave Martin
> To: binut...@sourceware.org
> Cc: linaro-toolchain
> Subject: Generating ancilliary sections with gas
>
> Hi all,
>
> Every now and again I come across a situ
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2011, Dave Martin wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 01:33:12PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>> > You must not use static variable in the decompressor. For one thing,
>> > that breaks the a
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 01:33:12PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2011, Shawn Guo wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 04:23:09PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> > > Hopefully this explains what's going on, but what are you trying
> > > to achieve exa
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:08:56AM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 04:23:09PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> > Hopefully this explains what's going on, but what are you trying
> > to achieve exactly?
> >
> Thanks a ton, Dave. It does explain what I
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 06:13:01PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
> Hi toolchain, kernel folks,
>
> I'm seeing an interesting thing on .got and .bss sections of
> arch/arm/boot/compressed/vmlinux, and really need your expertise to
> shed some lights.
>
> I have an uninitialized variable 'uart_base' defi
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 10:58:28AM +1200, Michael Hope wrote:
> Hi AJ. Exception support can still be turned on in C code when it's
> supposed to interoperate with C++ code. An example is the 64 bit
> division routine in libgcc - it could potentially throw a division by
> zero exception when call
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 12:00:02PM -0700, Andy Doan wrote:
> On 04/18/2011 11:54 AM, AJ ONeal wrote:
> > I just did `git checkout` for linaro/linux-2.6.38 and tried compiling
> > with CROSS_COMPILE=arm-linux-gnueabi- and I get this smc #0 error.
> >
> > The bug filed here is marked as fixed, but i
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 10:07 PM, Andy Doan wrote:
> On 03/07/2011 01:37 PM, Michael Opdenacker wrote:
>> I created a wiki page about the binary cross-compiling toolchains:
>> https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/BinaryCrossToolchains
>
> We already have a page pretty similiar to this he
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
> On 03/03/11 09:47, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
>>>
>>> Sure. But we have some evidence with the CS releases that this is
>>> reasonably possible, right?
>>
>> True, but CodeSourcery have some quite involved infrastructure in place
>> to achieve that
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Michael Hope wrote:
> (top posting as summarising)
>
> It's funny how things happen at the same time. I've been asked a few
> times about how to compile Linaro GCC so I started this page a few
> days ago:
> https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/Using
>
>
Hi all,
I've had comments that getting hold of binaries for the linaro
toolchain can be trick for people unfamiliar with the linaro tools.
One reason is that we don't release binaries as such -- but a visitor
browsing in through http://www.linaro.org/downloads/ won't discover
this, and may waste
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2011, John Rigby wrote:
>
>> The resulting kernel builds and boots but some modules have problems:
>>
>> $ modprobe fat
>> fat: unknown relocation: 102
>> FATAL: Error inserting vfat
>
> A workaround for what appears to be
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 11:04 AM, David Gilbert wrote:
> On 2 February 2011 10:47, Dave Martin wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 12:33 PM, David Gilbert
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> What do people understand to be the expected semantics of IT blocks
>>> in the
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 12:33 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
> Hi,
> What do people understand to be the expected semantics of IT blocks
> in the cases below, of which there has been some confusion
> in relation to a recent Qt issue.
>
> The code in question had a sequence something like:
>
>
> compar
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:48 PM, Alan Modra wrote:
> Have you seen http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2010-08/msg00121.html ?
That's interesting--- I hadn't fully understood what this did.
I'm not sure it solves my problem though: I need to generate ancillary
sectiions relating for normal section
Hi all,
Every now and again I come across a situation where it would be
really useful to be able to query the assembler state during
assembly: for example, to query and do something based on the
current section name. This makes it possible to write generic
macros to do certain things which otherw
Hi all,
With gas, does anyone know of a way to create a section whose name is
based on that of the current section?
The specific requirement is to be able to define a generic macro like
the example "fixup" below, whose purpose is to record ancilliary data
related to some other section. To illust
Hi Vijay,
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Vijay Kilari wrote:
> Hello Dave,
>
> Thanks for this info.
>
> I have few more queries after looking at the results of memset on A9 & A8.
> I agree that externel bus speed matters in comparision across platforms.
>
> 1) Why memset is performance is go
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 1:44 AM, Michael Hope wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Steve Langasek
> wrote:
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 09:29:38AM +1300, Michael Hope wrote:
>>> Hi Steve. I'd like to hand the rest of this over to you if that's OK.
>>
>> Yep, we can take
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 3:24 AM, Michael Hope wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:35 PM, Dave Martin wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Dave Martin wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 2:53 AM, Michael Hope
>>> wrote:
>>>> In general the pr
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 8 December 2010 12:57, Dave Martin wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Peter Maydell
>> wrote:
>>> Hi. As part of my work on qemu I've written a simplistic random instruction
>>> sequenc
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> Hi. As part of my work on qemu I've written a simplistic random instruction
> sequence generator and test harness. To quote the README:
>
> risu is a tool intended to assist in testing the implementation of
> models of the ARM architecture su
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 5:59 AM, Prashanth S wrote:
>
> Dear All
>
> Our team in Samsung collected some performance metrics for the following
> 3 GCC cross compilers
>
> Gentoo Complier(part of Chrome OS Build Environment)
> GCC 4.4.1 (Code Sourcery).
> Linaro (gcc-linaro-4.5-2010.11-1)
>
> Fla
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Dave Martin wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Thomas Petazzoni
>> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 16:28:27 +
>> > Dave Martin wrote:
>> >
>>
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 9:15 PM, Ben Dooks wrote:
[...]
>
> Could you do what the original FP did, and start with units off and use
> the first use of $unit in the process to turn it on? Do things like NEON
> support this?
>
Actually, this is still done -- it's the same code since NEON and
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 03:06:51PM +0000, Dave Martin wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 10:45:42AM +, Dav
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 10:45:42AM +0000, Dave Martin wrote:
>> Yes-- though I didn't elaborate on it. You need a packager that can
>> understand, say, that a binary built for ARMv5 EABI can intero
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 1:02 AM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> On 12/6/2010 5:07 AM, Dave Martin wrote:
>
>>> But,
>>> to enable binary distribution, having to have N copies of a library (let
>>> alone an application) for N different ARM core variants just doesn'
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> On 12/3/2010 11:35 AM, Dave Martin wrote:
>
>> What you describe is one of two mechanisms currently in use--- the
>> other is for a single library to contain two implementations of
>> certain functions and to choose b
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Thomas Petazzoni
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 16:28:27 +0000
> Dave Martin wrote:
>
>> This allows for more active power management of such functional
>> blocks: if the CPU is not fully loaded, you can turn them off -- the
>&
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 04:28:27PM +0000, Dave Martin wrote:
>> For on-SoC peripherals, this can be managed through the driver
>> framework in the kernel, but for functional blocks of the CPU itself
>&
Hi all,
I'd be interested in people's views on the following idea-- feel free
to ignore if it doesn't interest you.
For power-management purposes, it's useful to be able to turn off
functional blocks on the SoC.
For on-SoC peripherals, this can be managed through the driver
framework in the ker
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 9:06 AM, Yao Qi wrote:
> Hi, Kernel WG,
> Can recent kernel handle NEON registers in corefiles?
>
> Seems we've had plan for this in "Ensure full NEON debug support" in
> https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/KernelConsolidation/Specs/BSPInvestigations
> Any progress on this
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 9:49 PM, Michael Hope wrote:
> Hi there. Currently you can't use NEON instructions in inline
> assembly if the compiler is set to -mfpu=vfp such as Ubuntu's
> -mfpu=vfpv3-d16. Trying code like this:
>
> int main()
> {
> asm("veor d1, d2, d3");
> return 0;
> }
>
>
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 10:15 PM, Michael Hope wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Dave Martin wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 9:49 PM, Michael Hope
>> wrote:
>>> It's a bit of a newbie question, but I've been wondering if you c
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 9:49 PM, Michael Hope wrote:
> It's a bit of a newbie question, but I've been wondering if you can
> intermix hard float VFPv3-D16 code with VFPv3-D32 code. You can as:
>
> According to the ABI:
> * d0-d15 are used for floating point parameters, no matter if you are
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
[...]
> I hope there is at least a validation of the IT instructions by the
> assembler with regards to the condition codes on the following
> instructions (and vice versa) to make sure they are all coherent, and
> even so for ARM mode c
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 2:53 AM, Michael Hope wrote:
>> In general the product should move forward and drop work-arounds like
>> -mimplicit-it. We (the greater ARM community) should fix these
>> package problems as they
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 2:53 AM, Michael Hope wrote:
> In general the product should move forward and drop work-arounds like
> -mimplicit-it. We (the greater ARM community) should fix these
> package problems as they are found. Here's a bunch of quick-fire
> statements:
>
> * Qt is currently br
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 7:20 AM, Marcin Juszkiewicz
wrote:
> Dnia piątek, 12 listopada 2010 o 18:33:03 Dave Martin napisał(a):
>
>> * -mimplicit-it is already required by the Linux kernel and
>> possible other projects.
>
> Qt and KDE4 require -mimplicit-it=thumb too.
Hi Richard,
Recapping on this earlier conversation:
http://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/linaro-toolchain/2010-July/30.html
http://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/linaro-toolchain/2010-July/35.html
Is it worth another attempt to make a case to upstream for supporting
passing -mimplicit-it=thumb
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Michael Hope wrote:
> Hi Andrew. Any news on the upstreaming? I'm happy for the Toolchain
> WG to do the work as it helps Linaro as a whole, so if there's a patch
> available then I'll ask Richard S or Chung-Lin to get it upstream.
>
> Dave, has this been reporte
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
> On 05/11/10 09:46, Dave Martin wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, as you say it is CS Issue #8775, reported by ARM. The bug should be
>>> fixed in the imminent CS SG++ release. I do not think the patch is
>>>
Hi, thanks for the reply,
> Yes, as you say it is CS Issue #8775, reported by ARM. The bug should be
> fixed in the imminent CS SG++ release. I do not think the patch is upstream
> yet.
Can we get it upstream and/or into the linaro tools?
For development purposes I may be able to bodge around it
Hi all,
I've hit a probable assembler bug trying to build a Thumb-2 kernel:
Trying to assemble the attached file, I get:
arch/arm/kernel/relocate_kernel.S: Assembler messages:
arch/arm/kernel/relocate_kernel.S:10: Error: invalid offset, value too
big (0xFFFC)
arch/arm/kernel/relocate
Hi,
> There's another issue here: using a Linux user-space compiler to build for
> bare-metal is a bad plan. libgcc is built assuming that system calls and
> exceptions etc. work as they do in Linux user-mode. The Linux kernel is
> built with a user-space compiler for convenience, but a) the kerne
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010, Dave Martin wrote:
>> I'm not a toolchain expert, so I'm happy to be overridden... but my
>> _guess_ is:
>>
>> I think that in practice (at least on arm) cc -fPIC = cc -fPIE, and
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010, Dave Martin wrote:
>> This tells the compiler to generate PIC code, but it doesn't tell the
>> linker to generate PIC output... which matters if the linker needs to
>> add extra code durin
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
[...]
>> Because U-Boot doesn't build PIC for ARM (I notice it does for some
>> other arches).
> You are referring to old code. John explitly mentioned that he was
> working on the "next" branch, which has this:
>
> # needed for
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 9:29 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Dave Martin,
>
> In message you
> wrote:
>>
>> I believe such calls are getting resolved via a veneer because of a
>> combination the thumb2-ness of libgcc and the toolchain being used.
>>
>>
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 1:42 AM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
[...]
> If you want the exact same toolchain, you may have a look at:
> http://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/linaro-toolchain/2010-September/000155.html
I don't know exactly when --use-blx was introduced, but it has
apparently existed for a lon
Hi,
John Rigby wrote:
> 288: e59f0148 ldr r0, [pc, #328] ; 3d8
> 28c: e1a01083 lsl r1, r3, #1
> 290: ebfe bl 0 <__aeabi_idiv>
> 294: e2507006 subs r7, r0, #6
> 298: 4a01 bmi 2a4
I believe such calls are getting reso
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
[...]
>> > Actually I understand STT_GNU_IFUNC would allow that, we just lack a
>> > good test
>>
>> Is STT_GNU_IFUNC implemented yet?
>>
>
> No. We need to sort out the ABI specs first.
>
> R.
Ah, I guess we need that first.
We
Hi,
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 9:40 PM, Michael Hope wrote:
[...]
>>> I've just modified this to build different variants as well. ffmpeg
>>> now builds as supplied (-O2 and others), with -Os, with hand-written
>>> assembler turned off, and with -mfpu=neon. corebench builds in -O2
>>> and -Os.
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 11:31 PM, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010, Michael Hope wrote:
>> GLIBC a mechanism for picking the best routines to use based on the
>> CPU capabilities. This means that GLIBC can include A8 and A9
>> versions both with and without NEON, Ubuntu can ship all of t
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 3:50 AM, Michael Hope wrote:
> It's only part of the puzzle, but I run speed benchmarks as part of
> the continious build:
> http://ex.seabright.co.nz/helpers/buildlog
> http://ex.seabright.co.nz/helpers/benchcompare
> http://ex.seabright.co.nz/build/gcc-linaro-4.5-
It would be interesting if we could get a good, representative set of
comparative benchmarks for the size and performance impact of -Os.
I did a bit of investigation here:
https://wiki.linaro.org/Platform/Foundations/OptimiseForSize
(though with just a few packages and only one benchmark, it's n
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:43 AM, Loïc Minier wrote:
[...]
> Are you sure we have an auxv entry for a8 versus a9? In any case, I
> doubt it's considered for glibc hwcaps right now as this requires
> explicit flagging and the list of ARM flags is quite short.
Currently, I believe this i
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 2:14 AM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
[...]
> lsl r0, r0, #28
> asr r0, r0, #28
> bx lr
>
> But I doubt gcc could ever become that smart.
Some pointed out to me that the tempting C equivalent
(int)((unsigned)c << 28) >>
79 matches
Mail list logo
