Hi Marc, First, thanks for the work in debugging and verify there is a problem. We really appreciate it. If you're williing to debug it as Gabe mentioned, that would be great. If you'd like help, I might be able to provide some but to make some progress I'd like to know exactly which code sourcery version you were using and an exact command line used to build or options from a spec2006 cfg file. Do you know which one of these cases terminates the earliest?
Thanks, Ali On Apr 26, 2011, at 2:54 PM, Marc de Kruijf wrote: > I apologize for the delay in resonding; I wanted to make sure that I didn't > experience these problems running on actual ARM hardware. It appears that I > do not. > > I found through experimentation that I only experience issues when I compile > with fp support beyond vfp2; I don't have problems for vfp2, but I do see > occasional runtime errors compiling for vfp3 and neon. So, for instance, if > I give my gcc cross-compiler these options "-mfpu=vfpv3 -mfloat-abi=softfp", > I see some issues crop up (more information below). > > I am simulating the first 5 billion instructions in ARM_SE mode for 17/19 of > the SPEC 2006 C/C++ benchmarks. I use two different compilers, one is the > freely available CodeSourcery Lite GNU/Linux cross-compiler from > CodeSourcery, and the other is an LLVM-based cross compiler. The LLVM > compiler uses the same CodeSourcery assembler, but generates different > machine code. > > Below are the errors reported by each compiler. The differences between > compilers are most likely due to different instruction choices, although it > may also have to with the limited simulation time (5B insts). As I > mentioned, these issues don't appear with vfp2. > > LLVM and CodeSourcery: > 444.namd (checksum failure) > 462.libquantum (free of invalid pointer) > 482.sphinx3 (runtime error - illegal log base) > > LLVM only: > 447.dealII (llegal page fault) > > CodeSourcery only: > 445.gobmk (assertion failure) > 453.povray (version number mismatch) > > > > > On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Ali Saidi <[email protected]> wrote: > > Specifically, could you provide us with exactly what you're running (SE vs. > FS), spec benchmark, compiler, options, etc. > > Thanks, > Ali > > On Apr 17, 2011, at 4:10 AM, Gabe Black wrote: > >> Yes, they are fully supported. What problems are you seeing? >> >> Gabe >> >> On 04/16/11 20:52, Marc de Kruijf wrote: >>> >>> Are ARM hardware floating point instructions fully supported in M5? When I >>> compile with hardware FP I see problems running some SPEC2006 benchmarks >>> whereas I don't see the same problems when I compile using software FP. >>> >>> Thank you! >>> Marc >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> m5-users mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users >> >> _______________________________________________ >> m5-users mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users > > > _______________________________________________ > m5-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users > > _______________________________________________ > m5-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users
_______________________________________________ m5-users mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users
