> On Jan 11, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Phil Blundell <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, 2016-01-11 at 11:10 -0800, Khem Raj wrote: >> So I was asking was what improvements do we get if we choose armv7ve as tune >> and I did not get any definitive answers. > > If you compile with -march=armv7ve then you get the integer divide > instructions, which are not enabled under -march=armv7a.
ah idiv. I was just thinking its few virt and security extensions that may not be used in instruction schedule by gcc but idiv certainly will be used. > >> Why shouldnt we keep using armv7-a and tune the handful of apps to >> armv7ve where it is required. > > That'd be a distro decision. I agree that if you are targetting a mix > of cores, some that have hardware div and some that don't, it may not be > sensible to compile everything twice and you might want to standardise > on armv7a as the least common denominator. But Cortex-A15 is > widespread, and I think people who select tune-cortexa15.inc would have > a reasonable expectation that it would, indeed, tune for the > instructions that their processor supports. That's not to say that it > necessarily needs to be a generic armv7ve tune of course. I am with you for a15. > >> We should strive to reduce this tuning mayhem >> on arm especially. > > I agree with this, though. > > p. > >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
-- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
