Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 16:46:57 -0500 From: "Herminio Hernandez Jr. " <herminio.hernandezjr@gmail.com> To: Justin Hibbits <chmeeedalf@gmail.com> Cc: Thomas Rix <trix@juniper.net>, "freebsd-ppc@FreeBSD.org" <freebsd-ppc@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: e500 SPE support Message-ID: <425132B0-2CBB-4FCC-8E17-1AFD4298A35D@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAHSQbTDwY5SsHr13szAvouCZHtnSEe1ft%2B3swCO0OYr46fZe-Q@mail.gmail.com> References: <D5921757-653A-4E25-B2F2-5CF3E46D6BA7@gmail.com> <D23934EB.EDAB%trix@juniper.net> <CAHSQbTDwY5SsHr13szAvouCZHtnSEe1ft%2B3swCO0OYr46fZe-Q@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I did not know routerboards were PowerPC? Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 9, 2015, at 4:14 PM, Justin Hibbits <chmeeedalf@gmail.com> wrote: > > After talking with others, I'll be creating a new target, > powerpc/powerpcspe. This will live in a branch while I stabilize it > (I'll create a branch this weekend). My testing will be on the > Mikrotik RouterBoard RB800, but if anyone has hardware they can test > on, all the better. > > To keep things simple, I'll be overloading the enable_vec()/save_vec() > functions, and using this common API between Altivec and SPE. > > - Justin > >> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Thomas Rix <trix@juniper.net> wrote: >> I see the spe feature is in ToT llvm, but not no target is has this >> enabled by default. >> What hardware/software are you using to exercise the feature ? >> Asking so I could play too :) >> >> Likely folks wanting the feature would be willing to trade off with >> altivec. >> So mutually exclusive for me. >> >> Sprinkling code with spe specific seems clunky. >> Could there be some task bit that linker/compiler sets that the loader >> uses to do this automagically ? >> A tie into the task state would help with ptrace and possible debugger >> support. >> >> Tom >> >> --- >> Tom Rix >> Sr. Staff Compiler Engineer >> trix@juniper.net >> >> >> >> >> >> On 10/4/15, 9:14 PM, "owner-freebsd-ppc@freebsd.org on behalf of Justin >> Hibbits" <owner-freebsd-ppc@freebsd.org on behalf of chmeeedalf@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I've been doing some work on the e500 Signal Processing Engine (SPE, >>> sort of like Altivec, only weirder), but have some questions on >>> implementation: >>> >>> * This is mutually exclusive to Altivec, of course, because it shares >>> the GPRs, extending them to 64-bits, but only for SPE instructions. >>> Should the implementation be mutually exclusive, as well? Meaning, is >>> it better to have enable_spe()/save_spe() strewn throughout the code, >>> like is done with Altivec and FPU, or is it better to name them >>> *_vec(), and have a compile-time option of switching between Altivec >>> and SPE? The userland ABI would be different as well, which brings the >>> next question: >>> >>> * Do we want another target, like how Linux does it (powerpcspe)? Or >>> have this as just a different build option in src.conf? >>> >>> Suggestions are welcome and wanted. >>> >>> - Justin >>> _______________________________________________ >>> freebsd-ppc@freebsd.org mailing list >>> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ppc >>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ppc-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-ppc@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ppc > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ppc-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?425132B0-2CBB-4FCC-8E17-1AFD4298A35D>