On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 9:18 AM, Paul Koning wrote: > > On Jul 31, 2018, at 11:55 AM, Henry Bent <henry.r.b...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 31 July 2018 at 11:49, Timothe Litt <l...@ieee.org> wrote: > > > > On 31-Jul-18 10:08, Paul Koning wrote: > >>> On Jul 31, 2018, at 9:33 AM, Robert Armstrong <b...@jfcl.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> FWIW, this may also say something about the quality of the code > generation in gcc for ARM vs x86 processors, or it may even say something > about the relative efficiency of those two architectures. > >> One thing worth doing is to use the latest gcc. Code generation keeps > improving, and it's likely that architectures such as ARM see significant > benefits > in newer releases. > >> > >> ... > > > > I did a writeup a while back about various compilers and SIMH on x86, here > > is > the link from the archive: http://mailman.trailing- > edge.com/pipermail/simh/2015-December/014102.html > > > > Profile-guided feedback is extremely helpful for SIMH. If you are able to > > recompile SIMH for your workload using feedback, the gains are extremely > > significant.
I looked at Henry's stuff when he put it out, but it didn't lend itself to generic inclusion in the base platform independent source. > Interesting, and not too surprising. Given that, it may be useful to use a > recent > GCC which supports LTO -- Link Time Optimization. That's a scheme that allows > whole-program optimization, rather than the normal per-sourcefile > optimization. LTO was actually the default for most environments a few years back, but I think that was one of the first things that broke some simulators on some platforms. It has been backed out when there were problems. - Mark _______________________________________________ Simh mailing list Simh@trailing-edge.com http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh
