Re: benchmarks, was Re: toolchain
Hey,
Well i formatted a ffs partition and if found the image, but the
paritioner doesnt correctly read the disk table or something, i can
mount individual paritions trough /dev/discs/ide/... and even
formatted the three partions freed for linux... But they still dont
show up. . Any ideas?
-Mike
2009/9/22 Geert Uytterhoeven <geert.uytterhoeven@gmail.com>:
> 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: