On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>wrote:> On 31 March 2014 20:55, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: > > I'd almost prefer to leave it in for the bugs to be discovered > > (perhaps after some simple tests of our own). ARM went wirthout > > FastISel support on Linux for years simply because it was declared > > Darwin-only. > > Given the unique opportunity we have now, I'd say we should at least > give it a try. >I'm not sure I understand what you're proposing: check in with FastISel turned on for Linux, or off? I'd be afraid of bitrot if it's off, which was the main issue on the ARM side because code got added assuming Linux would work the same. Does it pass the tests on Linux with FastISel, or do we at least understand what's missing? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140331/f9dc97c5/attachment.html>
Renato Golin
2014-Mar-31 20:26 UTC
[LLVMdev] Contributing the Apple ARM64 compiler backend
On 31 March 2014 21:23, JF Bastien <jfb at google.com> wrote:>> Given the unique opportunity we have now, I'd say we should at least >> give it a try. > > I'm not sure I understand what you're proposing: check in with FastISel > turned on for Linux, or off? I'd be afraid of bitrot if it's off, which was > the main issue on the ARM side because code got added assuming Linux would > work the same. Does it pass the tests on Linux with FastISel, or do we at > least understand what's missing?Well, my point was that we should give FastIsel a try on Linux and not assume that it's dead just because it was in the other back-end (or on ARM). --renato
Eric Christopher
2014-Mar-31 20:28 UTC
[LLVMdev] Contributing the Apple ARM64 compiler backend
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 1:23 PM, JF Bastien <jfb at google.com> wrote:> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> > wrote: >> >> On 31 March 2014 20:55, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: >> > I'd almost prefer to leave it in for the bugs to be discovered >> > (perhaps after some simple tests of our own). ARM went wirthout >> > FastISel support on Linux for years simply because it was declared >> > Darwin-only. >> >> Given the unique opportunity we have now, I'd say we should at least >> give it a try. > > > I'm not sure I understand what you're proposing: check in with FastISel > turned on for Linux, or off? I'd be afraid of bitrot if it's off, which was > the main issue on the ARM side because code got added assuming Linux would > work the same. Does it pass the tests on Linux with FastISel, or do we at > least understand what's missing?I think we're assuming it's turned on in ToT. And I haven't done any testing of the generated code for fast isel. -eric> > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >
James Molloy
2014-Mar-31 20:40 UTC
[LLVMdev] Contributing the Apple ARM64 compiler backend
Hi, Apart from whether fast-isel should be enabled or disabled (I think enabled, personally), I haven't heard any dissenting voices about how to attack the merge problem yet. Tim, am I correct in saying that you believe AArch64 -> ARM64 is the right way to go? Does anyone disagree with that approach? Cheers, James ________________________________________ From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Eric Christopher [echristo at gmail.com] Sent: 31 March 2014 21:28 To: JF Bastien Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Contributing the Apple ARM64 compiler backend On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 1:23 PM, JF Bastien <jfb at google.com> wrote:> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> > wrote: >> >> On 31 March 2014 20:55, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: >> > I'd almost prefer to leave it in for the bugs to be discovered >> > (perhaps after some simple tests of our own). ARM went wirthout >> > FastISel support on Linux for years simply because it was declared >> > Darwin-only. >> >> Given the unique opportunity we have now, I'd say we should at least >> give it a try. > > > I'm not sure I understand what you're proposing: check in with FastISel > turned on for Linux, or off? I'd be afraid of bitrot if it's off, which was > the main issue on the ARM side because code got added assuming Linux would > work the same. Does it pass the tests on Linux with FastISel, or do we at > least understand what's missing?I think we're assuming it's turned on in ToT. And I haven't done any testing of the generated code for fast isel. -eric> > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >_______________________________________________ LLVM Developers mailing list LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. ARM Limited, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, Registered in England & Wales, Company No: 2557590 ARM Holdings plc, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, Registered in England & Wales, Company No: 2548782