similar to: [LLVMdev] ACE claims better result than LLVM for ARM 9 ?

On Jul 27, 2012, at 9:36 AM, Sebastien DELDON-GNB wrote: > ACE issued following PR: > http://www.ace.nl/news/aces-cosy-compiler-framework-outperforms-llvm-arm9-processor > Weird that they don't give any number and use ARM 9, do they mean cortex-a9 ? It's impossible to say. This sort of marketing statement is impossible to refute, because there are no details. Who knows whether

Hi Renato, It's definitively not A15. Can this be the case that NEON units for cortex-A9 support it but isn't documented/recommended ? And as mentioned before code is working ! Seb > -----Original Message----- > From: rengolin at gmail.com [mailto:rengolin at gmail.com] On Behalf Of > Renato Golin > Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 6:27 PM > To: Sebastien DELDON-GNB >

Hi Bastien, Weird gcc is generating fma for my platform STEricsson Novathor with Linaro, code works. It also works when I use LLVM to generate fma (using llc -mtriple=armv7-eabi). Maybe someone from ARM can answer the question ? Seb From: JF Bastien [mailto:jfb at google.com] Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 5:36 PM To: Sebastien DELDON-GNB Cc: Anitha Boyapati; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject:

cat /proc/cpuinfo ? Are you sure it's generating VFMA and not VMLA? On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Sebastien DELDON-GNB < sebastien.deldon at st.com> wrote: > Hi Renato, > > It's definitively not A15. Can this be the case that NEON units for > cortex-A9 support it but isn't documented/recommended ? > And as mentioned before code is working ! > > Seb >

Hi Anitha, Thanks for your answer but -mcpu=cortex-a9 -mattr=+vfp4 doesn' t enable fused mac generation for me. I would like just to understand why -mtriple=armv7-eabi enables it while -mcpu=cortex-a9 seems to disable it ? Seb > -----Original Message----- > From: Anitha Boyapati [mailto:anitha.boyapati at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 10:22 AM > To: Sebastien

Understood for the aligned case, I want to measure performance degradation for unaligned case. I mean unaligned case versus aligned. I know this is stupid, but I want to try to pass a <4 x float>* as parameter of a routine and at the call site I want to pass a misaligned pointer. Since LLVM is generating movapd instruction it will raise an exception (SEGFAULT), I just want to know if there

Hi Sebastien, ARMv7-M has VFMA and LLVM's "triple" is far from perfect. Wikipedia tells me NovaThor can also be A15, or STE could have cramped a VFPv4 in it? ;) Or possibly, your code never branches into the VFMA. Many things could be happening, but usually, VFMA shouldn't be generated for A9. A GCC bug, maybe? On 9 November 2012 16:51, Sebastien DELDON-GNB

AFAIK A9 doesn't have VFPv4 or AdvSIMDv2, so it doesn't have VFMA. I don't know what LLVM does, but it shouldn't emit VFMA when you target A9. VMLA isn't a fused multiply-add, it's a multiply followed by an add and has different latency as well as precision. On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 4:57 AM, Sebastien DELDON-GNB < sebastien.deldon at st.com> wrote: > Hi Anitha,

On Feb 28, 2011, at 2:58 AM, Sebastien DELDON-GNB wrote: > Understood for the aligned case, I want to measure performance degradation for unaligned case. > I mean unaligned case versus aligned. I know this is stupid, but I want to try to pass a <4 x float>* as parameter of a routine and at the call site I want to pass a misaligned pointer. Since LLVM is generating movapd instruction

Hi Eli, Thanks for the answer, it clarifies the situation for me. Do you know if there is Pass in LLVM that could be adapted to 'legalize' intrinsics calls ? Or shall I define my own intrinsics for non supported types ? Best Regards Seb ________________________________________ De : Eli Friedman [eli.friedman at gmail.com] Date d'envoi : vendredi 21 septembre 2012 11:54 À : Sebastien

On 12 February 2013 16:56, Sebastien DELDON-GNB <sebastien.deldon at st.com>wrote: > If this helps taking your decision, there are at least two benchmarks for > which disabling vmlx-forwarding makes a significant difference. > I think Evan's worry was to base this decision on visible and comprehensible benchmarks, such as the test-suite. If I get lucky I may be able to run

Hi all, Is there a way to force llc to generate movupd instruction instead of movapd for x86 target ? I know that movapd is more performant, but I would like to measure degradation when alignment constraints are not met. Best Regards Seb -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi James, Thanks for the answer, for Cortex-A9 would you recommend to generate thumb2 code or ARM code ? What would be the best performance wise ? Best Regards Seb > -----Original Message----- > From: James Molloy [mailto:james.molloy at arm.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 9:57 AM > To: Sebastien DELDON-GNB > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] llc support

Hi Sebastien, How many extra vmlas did you see in 433.milc due to disabling -vmlx-forwarding? As I mentioned earlier, I saw only two additional integer vmlx instructions when I tested. Could you send me your 433.milc compile setup? (os, flags, compiler version, etc.). I'd like to try to reproduce your results. Cheers, Lang. On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 9:05 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at

Hi all, Does llc -march=thumb -mcpu=cortex-a9 enable generation of thumb2 code for armv7 ? Best Regards Seb -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120727/da758ea0/attachment.html>

On Sep 21, 2012, at 2:58 AM, Sebastien DELDON-GNB <sebastien.deldon at st.com> wrote: > Hi Eli, > > Thanks for the answer, it clarifies the situation for me. Do you know if there is Pass in LLVM that could be adapted to 'legalize' intrinsics calls ? > Or shall I define my own intrinsics for non supported types ? You should never generate these sorts of intrinsics with

Hi all, I've a .ll code that use double precision fmul/fadd or fmul/fsub. When I compile it using llc -mcpu=cortex-a9 I couldn't get vmla/vmls generated even using -fp-contract=fast, but when I use option -mtriple=armv7-eabi instead of -mcpu=cortex-a9 fused mac are generated. Can someone explain me why ? Thanks for your answers Seb -------------- next part -------------- An HTML

Hi Renato, Thanks for the answer, it confirms what I was suspecting. My problem is that this behavior is controlled by vmlx forwarding on cortex-a9 for which despite asking on this list, I couldn't get a clear understanding what this option is meant for. So here are my new questions: Why for cortex-a9 vmlx-forwarding is enabled by default ? Is it to guarantee correctness or for performance

Hi Lang & Renato, I eventually set up a panda board with latest linaro delivery (eabi-hf). I did some experiments using my own compiler and LLVM 3.2 as back-end. I use same flagset for my compiler (front-end) and just invoke llc with and without vmlx-forwarding attribute. So base arguments to llc are: llc -march=arm -mcpu=cortex-a9 -mattr=+neon -float-abi=hard to which I added

Hi all, I would like to know if LLVM Neon intrinsics are designed to support only 'Legal' types for NEON units. Using llc -march=arm -mcpu=cortex-a9 vmax4.ll -o vmax4.s on following ll code: ; ModuleID = 'vmax.ll' target datalayout = "e-p:32:32:32-i1:8:8-i8:8:8-i16:16:16-i32:32:32-i64:64:64-f32:32:32-f64:64:64-v64:64:64-v128:128:128-a0:0:64-n32" target triple =