On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 11:19:14PM +0100, Sebastian Pop wrote: > Hi, > > from what I understand, Evandro has addressed the comments from Kyrill. > Are there other problems to be addressed before the patches can go in?
Trunk is currently in Stage 4 development, these patches are fairly low-risk, but they are certainly not regression fixes. I'll defer to port maintainers and release managers for the final say, but in my opinion it would not be appropriate to commit them until Stage 1 development for GCC 6.0 opens (hopefully in a few weeks). For the AArch64 patch, I was expecting to see a respin after Junmo's comment on Wednesday [1]. In particular: +AARCH64_CORE("exynos-m1", exynosm1, exynosm1, 8, AARCH64_FL_FOR_ARCH8 | AARCH64_FL_CRC | AARCH64_FL_CRYPTO, exynosm1) As there has not been a scheduling model contributed for the exynos-m1, this will use *no* scheduling model on AArch64. This is unlikely to give good performance. +static const struct tune_params exynosm1_tunings = +{ + &cortexa57_extra_costs, + &cortexa57_addrcost_table, + &cortexa57_regmove_cost, + &cortexa57_vector_cost, + 4, /* memmov_cost */ + 3, /* issue_rate */ + (AARCH64_FUSE_MOV_MOVK | AARCH64_FUSE_ADRP_ADD + | AARCH64_FUSE_MOVK_MOVK), /* fuseable_ops */ + 16, /* function_align. */ + 8, /* jump_align. */ + 4, /* loop_align. */ + 2, /* int_reassoc_width. */ + 4, /* fp_reassoc_width. */ + 1 /* vec_reassoc_width. */ +}; + As these are identical to the Cortex-A57 tuning, is there any reason to add them? I'd prefer if we took a copy-on-modify policy for these tuning structs, only adding them where there is a difference. Thanks, James --- [1]: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-04/msg00001.html