On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 at 14:54, Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana.radhakrish...@arm.com> wrote: > I don't think the make bench discussion is totally relevant in this > case. We'd like to see what the performance of this stuff is and it's > always goign to be a battle to get things benchmarked perfectly on > hardware and there is unlikely to be one implementation in the Arm world
+1, I don't think there's a risk in pushing these patches without a benchmark result. When implementations appear we can run benchmarks and tweak and choose accordingly. In the worst case if we find that *everyone* botched up their SVE implementations then we can just drop that code in some years :) > unlike other architectures. It's under an ifunc and gives folks > something to reason with, if we are really that concerned about it's > performance today lets put it under a tunable that allows us to turn it > off easily ? Existing tunables can do the job just fine: - glibc.tune.cpu can be used to emulate a different processor if that's suitable for the core - glibc.tune.hwcap_mask can be used to mask out HWCAP_SVE completely Siddhesh _______________________________________________ linaro-toolchain mailing list linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
