Openembedded Core Discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@windriver.com>
To: Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net>
Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] Change default for cortexa* to armv7at-neon.
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 08:57:57 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <53FF3565.1030604@windriver.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <53F8A551-7665-45B9-A386-DFA43D57E04F@dominion.thruhere.net>

On 8/28/14, 8:50 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>
> Op 25 aug. 2014, om 21:12 heeft Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@windriver.com> het volgende geschreven:
>
>> On 8/22/14, 5:26 PM, Martin Jansa wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 05:06:26PM -0500, Peter Seebach wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 23:46:26 +0200
>>>> Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> changing
>>>>> default DEFAULTTUNE (and TUNE_PKGARCH with that) to have thumb while
>>>>> still building with -marm doesn't make much sense to me and is only
>>>>> confusing.
>>>>
>>>> I think the distinction is that if you use armv7at-neon, you *can* build
>>>> specific packages with thumb. Mostly, I guess, I don't think it makes sense
>>>> to use a tuning that specifically states that it can't run thumb code for
>>>> processors which can. Although... May not be an important distinction, really,
>>>> as you note.
>>>
>>>> I don't think it makes sense to use a tuning that specifically states
>>>> that it can't run thumb code
>>
>> The defaulttune is supposed to supply what the processor and ABI are capable of.
>>
>> So in the case of armv7a, it's saying no thumb support at all, this included thumb interwork.
>>
>> armv7at says that the processor supports thumb, and interwork -should- be enabled.  (It can of course be manually disabled, but that's another issue to be dealt with...)
>>
>> armv7at doesn't say it actually includes thumb combines binaries.  (I argued originally it should, but was overruled for a variety of reasons... not the least of which is the interwork enabled, and multilib issues with 'same abi' configurations.)
>>
>> So I agree the default should be armv7at or armv7at-neon, unless there is a compelling reason to leave it as a default with interwork disabled.
>>
>> As for the hard float question.  I'm torn on this.. for compatibility a lot of the industry is still soft-float based, and frankly I've not exactly encouraged it with my customers.. (I'm not seeing general performance improvements, only improvements in select artificial benchmarks, or specific pieces of code.)
>
> Again, softfloat != softfp. The current OE default of softfp *does* use the VFP, it just passed the floats in the integer registers. Which is why you will see no difference with hardfloat except for benchmarks and povray.
>

Exactly.  Which is why I haven't recommended to my customers that they -need- 
the HF ABI, like others in the ARM world seem to be insisting.

If you have a LOT of functions that pass floats, or you do it often enough to 
see the behavior -- I can see how it would be useful.  But this is fairly 
artificial in most of the embedded workloads I'm familiar with.

So I'd still say I'd like to change the cortexa* DEFAULTTUNES to reference 
armv7at or armv7at-neon (continue the softfp ABI for the time being).  I'd be 
fine with the at-neon version, as I think all of the commodity armv7a's have neon.

--Mark


  reply	other threads:[~2014-08-28 13:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-08-21 19:54 [PATCH 0/1] Change default for cortexa* to armv7at-neon Peter Seebach
2014-08-21 19:54 ` [PATCH 1/1] tune-cortexa*.inc: use armv7at by default Peter Seebach
2014-08-25  5:09   ` Khem Raj
2014-08-22 16:44 ` [PATCH 0/1] Change default for cortexa* to armv7at-neon Philip Balister
2014-08-22 18:33   ` Peter Seebach
2014-08-22 19:39     ` Martin Jansa
2014-08-22 20:49       ` Peter Seebach
2014-08-22 21:46         ` Martin Jansa
2014-08-22 22:06           ` Peter Seebach
2014-08-22 22:26             ` Martin Jansa
2014-08-25 19:12               ` Mark Hatle
2014-08-25 19:35                 ` Khem Raj
2014-08-25 19:40                   ` Mark Hatle
2014-08-25 20:40                   ` Martin Jansa
2014-08-28 12:51                 ` Philip Balister
2014-08-28 13:50                 ` Koen Kooi
2014-08-28 13:57                   ` Mark Hatle [this message]
2014-08-28 14:08                     ` Koen Kooi
2014-08-28 14:21                       ` Mark Hatle
2014-08-28 14:24                         ` Mark Hatle
2014-08-29  6:12                     ` Mike Looijmans
2014-08-29 12:16                       ` Koen Kooi
2014-08-29 12:57                       ` Mark Hatle
2014-08-24 23:51       ` Khem Raj
2014-08-24  7:56   ` Mike Looijmans
2014-08-24 14:44     ` Philip Balister
2014-08-24 18:15       ` Koen Kooi
2014-08-23 17:32 ` Koen Kooi

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=53FF3565.1030604@windriver.com \
    --to=mark.hatle@windriver.com \
    --cc=koen@dominion.thruhere.net \
    --cc=openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox