Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2016 12:44:04 +0800 From: Erich Dollansky <erichsfreebsdlist@alogt.com> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: "freebsd-arm@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arm@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: clang++: error: the clang compiler does not support '-march=native' Message-ID: <20160207124404.186b395f@X220.alogt.com> In-Reply-To: <CANCZdfrKN07xT-LnuB=DNrtHpAJ0_R6uDbQiQ2dyxtu_wMCZug@mail.gmail.com> References: <20160207050149.39f7e280@X220.alogt.com> <CANCZdfrHd3GTZWC96SQcbbWpfYMqMiLthQ%2BHdCUaKmz=OqAddA@mail.gmail.com> <20160207095721.57fc3502@X220.alogt.com> <CANCZdfrKN07xT-LnuB=DNrtHpAJ0_R6uDbQiQ2dyxtu_wMCZug@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, On Sat, 6 Feb 2016 21:01:13 -0700 Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 6:57 PM, Erich Dollansky > <erichsfreebsdlist@alogt.com > > wrote: > > > On Sat, 6 Feb 2016 15:49:14 -0700 > > Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Erich Dollansky > > > <erichsfreebsdlist@alogt.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > compiling on a Raspberry Pi B 2 on FreeBSD 11 gives me above's > > > > error message. > > > > > > > > A Internet search shows that this message does not exist. > > > > > > > > The program compiles using the same make file on FreeBSD 10 > > > > both on x86 and an Raspberry Pi B using the default compilers. > > > > > > > > Did support for 'march' get removed? > > > > > > > > > > As far as I can tell, it has never worked for either gcc or clang. > > > > > this is what I would have liked to find out. Intel claims speed > > gains of some 40% on their CPUs depending on the work load using > > gcc. > > > > Getting a few per cent on a Raspberry for free would make a real > > difference. > > > > Well, the -march=<actual-cpu-here> args work, just not -march=native. > The exact details of the core aren't exported from the kernel, so the > compiler can't easily query them to guess at the best code generation > to use. I think it would be a useful feature, but it just isn't one > we have yet. > > There are some -march values that get so aggressive about optimization > that they reveal some alignment issues. However, I think we've kill > them all. If not, we'd love to hear about it. > > I know that the -march=arm1176 works well for the RPi B. Last time I > tried it, the -march=cortex-a7 had some alignment issues. Since then > I've seen fixes go into the tree and I haven't tried again. Reports > from elsewhere indicate that this will give tens of percent in > improvement depending on the workload. > ok, I will try this then. Is there a list of working architectures somewhere which really applies for clang? I found only random information. Erich
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160207124404.186b395f>