Re: benchmarks, was Re: toolchain
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 16:51, mike <localgost@gmail.com> wrote:
>> These benchmarks aren't for linux, right?
> Nope, thats amiga c
> I see umisef made a mac version , but i cant see a link to it anywhere.
>
>
> For some reason, probably due to the way amigaos 3.9 has configured
> the hd i cant mount, or read SFS partitions from linux, so im dead in
Linux can't read SFS/PFS.
> Are there any other VM's i could use to install linux 68k?
ARAnyM?
> 2009/9/22 Finn Thain <fthain@telegraphics.com.au>:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009, mike wrote:
>>
>>> Seems im not the only soul feeling the bloat
>>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10358024-16.html
>>>
>>> I havent seen any 68k linux benchmarks for this yet
>>> http://cshandley.co.uk/temp/membench/
>>> http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=29569&forum=14
>>
>> These benchmarks aren't for linux, right?
>>
>>>
>>> It would be interesting if someone could compare a binary compiled with
>>> gcc 2.95 to 3.33 3.40 and or 4.4 for linux, on various systems even. To
>>> see if the slowdown has any consistency.
>>
>> If you would like to run some linux benchmarks, I could build the latest
>> kernel using several different compilers for you. I'd need a kernel config
>> to suit your hardware though.
>>
>> But if you want to compare different compilers using benchmarks for a
>> different operating system, I can't help with that. You may have more luck
>> with that on the relevant mailing list or forum.
>>
>> Finn
>>
>>>
>>> -Mike
>>>
>>>
>>> 2009/9/14 <fthain@telegraphics.com.au>:
>>> >
>>> > On Sun, 13 Sep 2009, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> fthain@telegraphics.com.au wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > On Sat, 5 Sep 2009, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > > Finn Thain wrote: ...
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > > I understand that the current GCC (4.4) lacks the necessary
>>> >> > > > patches, and 4.5 is still uncooked (and that's a scary prospect).
>>> >> > > > Can someone confirm that this is the necessary patch for 4.4:
>>> >> > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-05/msg01024.html
>>> >> > > I think GCC 4.4 should be good enough.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I tried patching 4.4.1 and the patch was rejected. It expects
>>> >> > m68k_legitimize_address() to have been declared and defined, but that
>>> >> > routine isn't in gcc-4.4.
>>> >>
>>> >> m68k.c:m68k_legitimize_address() was macro m68k.h:LEGITIMIZE_ADDRESS(),
>>> >> you need to move the hunk to m68k.h.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > Thanks for the tip.
>>> >
>>> > Here's a second cut. This one removes the m68k_tls_symbol_p() routine and
>>> > inlines that logic in the LEGITIMIZE_ADDRESS macro (avoids a reference to
>>> > m68k_tls_symbol_p() from explow.o). The TARGET_HAVE_TLS macro wasn't
>>> > defined in explow.c so I changed it to HAVE_AS_TLS.
>>> >
>>> > It appears to work, but I won't be able to test any binary produced by
>>> > this compiler for a week or so.
>>> >
>>> > Finn
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --- gcc-m68k-support-for-tls.patch 2009-09-14 15:11:39.893286532 +1000
>>> > +++ gcc-m68k-support-for-tls-backport.patch 2009-09-14 15:11:34.563287784 +1000
>>> > @@ -574,13 +574,7 @@
>>> >
>>> > enum reg_class regno_reg_class[] =
>>> > {
>>> > -@@ -143,11 +144,13 @@ static tree m68k_handle_fndecl_attribute
>>> > - static void m68k_compute_frame_layout (void);
>>> > - static bool m68k_save_reg (unsigned int regno, bool interrupt_handler);
>>> > - static bool m68k_ok_for_sibcall_p (tree, tree);
>>> > -+static bool m68k_tls_symbol_p (rtx);
>>> > - static rtx m68k_legitimize_address (rtx, rtx, enum machine_mode);
>>> > - static bool m68k_rtx_costs (rtx, int, int, int *, bool);
>>> > +@@ -146,6 +147,7 @@ static tree m68k_handle_fndecl_attribute
>>> > #if M68K_HONOR_TARGET_STRICT_ALIGNMENT
>>> > static bool m68k_return_in_memory (const_tree, const_tree);
>>> > #endif
>>> > @@ -613,16 +607,6 @@
>>> > && crtl->uses_pic_offset_table)
>>> > insn = emit_insn (gen_load_got (pic_offset_table_rtx));
>>> > }
>>> > -@@ -1431,6 +1441,9 @@ m68k_legitimize_sibcall_address (rtx x)
>>> > - rtx
>>> > - m68k_legitimize_address (rtx x, rtx oldx, enum machine_mode mode)
>>> > - {
>>> > -+ if (m68k_tls_symbol_p (x))
>>> > -+ return m68k_legitimize_tls_address (x);
>>> > -+
>>> > - if (GET_CODE (x) == PLUS)
>>> > - {
>>> > - int ch = (x) != (oldx);
>>> > @@ -1849,7 +1862,7 @@ m68k_illegitimate_symbolic_constant_p (r
>>> > && !offset_within_block_p (base, INTVAL (offset)))
>>> > return true;
>>> > @@ -957,7 +941,7 @@
>>> > return orig;
>>> >
>>> > gcc_assert (reg);
>>> > -@@ -2196,13 +2421,257 @@ legitimize_pic_address (rtx orig, enum m
>>> > +@@ -2196,13 +2421,244 @@ legitimize_pic_address (rtx orig, enum m
>>> > base == reg ? 0 : reg);
>>> >
>>> > if (GET_CODE (orig) == CONST_INT)
>>> > @@ -1164,19 +1148,6 @@
>>> > + return orig;
>>> > +}
>>> > +
>>> > -+/* Return true if X is a TLS symbol. */
>>> > -+
>>> > -+static bool
>>> > -+m68k_tls_symbol_p (rtx x)
>>> > -+{
>>> > -+ if (!TARGET_HAVE_TLS)
>>> > -+ return false;
>>> > -+
>>> > -+ if (GET_CODE (x) != SYMBOL_REF)
>>> > -+ return false;
>>> > -+
>>> > -+ return SYMBOL_REF_TLS_MODEL (x) != 0;
>>> > -+}
>>> > +
>>> > +/* Helper for m68k_tls_referenced_p. */
>>> > +
>>> > @@ -1414,6 +1385,18 @@
>>> >
>>> > #define REG_OK_FOR_BASE_P(X) \
>>> > m68k_legitimate_base_reg_p (X, REG_STRICT_P)
>>> > +@@ -777,7 +778,10 @@ __transfer_from_trampoline () \
>>> > + #define COPY_ONCE(Y) if (!copied) { Y = copy_rtx (Y); copied = ch = 1; }
>>> > + #define LEGITIMIZE_ADDRESS(X,OLDX,MODE,WIN) \
>>> > + { register int ch = (X) != (OLDX); \
>>> > +- if (GET_CODE (X) == PLUS) \
>>> > ++ if (HAVE_AS_TLS && (GET_CODE (X) == SYMBOL_REF) && \
>>> > ++ (SYMBOL_REF_TLS_MODEL (X) != 0)) \
>>> > ++ m68k_legitimize_tls_address (X); \
>>> > ++ else if (GET_CODE (X) == PLUS) \
>>> > + { int copied = 0; \
>>> > + if (GET_CODE (XEXP (X, 0)) == MULT) \
>>> > + { COPY_ONCE (X); XEXP (X, 0) = force_operand (XEXP (X, 0), 0);} \
>>> > @@ -974,6 +975,9 @@ do { if (cc_prev_status.flags & CC_IN_68
>>> > assemble_name ((FILE), (NAME)), \
>>> > fprintf ((FILE), ",%u\n", (int)(ROUNDED)))
>>> > --
>>> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-m68k" in
>>> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>>> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>> >
>>>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-m68k" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
Reply to: