Adding TARGET_VECTOR

Adding TARGET_VECTOR

[Kumar Gala]

We have some packages like flac that are aware of vectorization that may or may not exist on a given processor.  I was wondering if adding something like TARGET_VECTOR similar to TARGET_FPU made sense as a way for recipes to decide on how to set various vectorization flags if needed.

I was looking at this mostly from the PPC side in which we have:

TARGET_VECTOR = "" /* processor has no vector hw */
TARGET_VECTOR = "altivec" /* processor has AltiVec support */
TARGET_VECTOR = "spe" /* processor has signal processing engine support */
TARGET_VECTOR = "vsx" /* processor has Vector-Scalar Extension */

Not sure what makes sense for x86, ARM, or MIPS.

- k

Re: Adding TARGET_VECTOR

[Kumar Gala]

On Aug 25, 2011, at 9:35 AM, Kumar Gala wrote:

> We have some packages like flac that are aware of vectorization that may or may not exist on a given processor.  I was wondering if adding something like TARGET_VECTOR similar to TARGET_FPU made sense as a way for recipes to decide on how to set various vectorization flags if needed.
> 
> I was looking at this mostly from the PPC side in which we have:
> 
> TARGET_VECTOR = "" /* processor has no vector hw */
> TARGET_VECTOR = "altivec" /* processor has AltiVec support */
> TARGET_VECTOR = "spe" /* processor has signal processing engine support */
> TARGET_VECTOR = "vsx" /* processor has Vector-Scalar Extension */
> 
> Not sure what makes sense for x86, ARM, or MIPS.

Any comments on this?

- k

Re: Adding TARGET_VECTOR

[Khem Raj]

On 8/25/2011 7:35 AM, Kumar Gala wrote:
> We have some packages like flac that are aware of vectorization that may or may not exist on a given processor.  I was wondering if adding something like TARGET_VECTOR similar to TARGET_FPU made sense as a way for recipes to decide on how to set various vectorization flags if needed.
>
> I was looking at this mostly from the PPC side in which we have:
>
> TARGET_VECTOR = "" /* processor has no vector hw */
> TARGET_VECTOR = "altivec" /* processor has AltiVec support */
> TARGET_VECTOR = "spe" /* processor has signal processing engine support */
> TARGET_VECTOR = "vsx" /* processor has Vector-Scalar Extension */
>

is target vector a property of FPU itself or is it a separate processing 
unit in hardware.?


> Not sure what makes sense for x86, ARM, or MIPS.

>
> - k
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

Re: Adding TARGET_VECTOR

[McClintock Matthew-B29882]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/25/2011 7:35 AM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>
>> We have some packages like flac that are aware of vectorization that may
>> or may not exist on a given processor.  I was wondering if adding something
>> like TARGET_VECTOR similar to TARGET_FPU made sense as a way for recipes to
>> decide on how to set various vectorization flags if needed.
>>
>> I was looking at this mostly from the PPC side in which we have:
>>
>> TARGET_VECTOR = "" /* processor has no vector hw */
>> TARGET_VECTOR = "altivec" /* processor has AltiVec support */
>> TARGET_VECTOR = "spe" /* processor has signal processing engine support */
>> TARGET_VECTOR = "vsx" /* processor has Vector-Scalar Extension */
>>
>
> is target vector a property of FPU itself or is it a separate processing
> unit in hardware.?

We have several powerpc cores each containing a different vector
features. We need a way to differentiate in the recipes between
different cores and decide to enable SPE, Altivec, etc to build the
package properly.

I've sort of gone the route of adding:

OVERRIDES := ":core_type"

And using that in recipes. But, I think we need a consensus on how we
want to handle this.

-M

Re: Adding TARGET_VECTOR

[Khem Raj]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:49 AM, McClintock Matthew-B29882
<B29882@freescale.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 8/25/2011 7:35 AM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>>
>>> We have some packages like flac that are aware of vectorization that may
>>> or may not exist on a given processor.  I was wondering if adding something
>>> like TARGET_VECTOR similar to TARGET_FPU made sense as a way for recipes to
>>> decide on how to set various vectorization flags if needed.
>>>
>>> I was looking at this mostly from the PPC side in which we have:
>>>
>>> TARGET_VECTOR = "" /* processor has no vector hw */
>>> TARGET_VECTOR = "altivec" /* processor has AltiVec support */
>>> TARGET_VECTOR = "spe" /* processor has signal processing engine support */
>>> TARGET_VECTOR = "vsx" /* processor has Vector-Scalar Extension */
>>>
>>
>> is target vector a property of FPU itself or is it a separate processing
>> unit in hardware.?
>
> We have several powerpc cores each containing a different vector
> features. We need a way to differentiate in the recipes between
> different cores and decide to enable SPE, Altivec, etc to build the
> package properly.
>
> I've sort of gone the route of adding:
>
> OVERRIDES := ":core_type"
>
> And using that in recipes. But, I think we need a consensus on how we
> want to handle this.

there is SOC_FAMILY thats used predominantly in TI chips that could be
of interest here.
but in this case I wanted to understand
if it is a feature of FPU or is it a separate unit, still not clear to me.

>
> -M
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>

Re: Adding TARGET_VECTOR

[McClintock Matthew-B29882]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:
> there is SOC_FAMILY thats used predominantly in TI chips that could be
> of interest here.
> but in this case I wanted to understand
> if it is a feature of FPU or is it a separate unit, still not clear to me.

It's all on one SoC/Core.

-M