From owner-freebsd-ppc@freebsd.org Fri Oct 9 21:47:00 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ppc@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 839499D370E for ; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 21:47:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from herminio.hernandezjr@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ob0-x230.google.com (mail-ob0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48AABC38 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 21:47:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from herminio.hernandezjr@gmail.com) Received: by obbzf10 with SMTP id zf10so72178029obb.2 for ; Fri, 09 Oct 2015 14:46:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=oOWm6BnslwnUOJjcpfOZGdHYdCXid973aw2L8Ecm/dk=; b=MU1088HuYulrCjL02ShGL1Xk8YzxHnRtRTEvhyK/rAFuaKkO1izPojGX5vA46MRdgw kIdzYySc5lqPzfJ/m4IYx0VZV7Bi7em40sMAKUxgzmmevQvLe7hjYEwT6B1hrvW6bSWc zUkA5tTBAi69pMSBX4SEXo1EZvcWtlftpxWnByGXEgBhXBy+GY2J+pWOd6aXAnBgQslj 0NEsGYzsF1dVcwHZODsuhwc67q35nhPCUescINewYEN1bPTO7CrWu4kjGONtgMLkowhV 76PBpC8BIrpkLwh/+z4r5PIcYTcuVnIX6VyO2ptiWoI4i9SQmCbsLVHGUFlpc/a0eduj JmfA== X-Received: by 10.182.63.80 with SMTP id e16mr9926138obs.83.1444427219482; Fri, 09 Oct 2015 14:46:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.39.195.149] ([166.177.122.37]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id su2sm1617063oeb.14.2015.10.09.14.46.58 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 09 Oct 2015 14:46:58 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Subject: Re: e500 SPE support From: "Herminio Hernandez Jr. " X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (13A452) In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 16:46:57 -0500 Cc: Thomas Rix , "freebsd-ppc@FreeBSD.org" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <425132B0-2CBB-4FCC-8E17-1AFD4298A35D@gmail.com> References: To: Justin Hibbits X-BeenThere: freebsd-ppc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the PowerPC List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 21:47:00 -0000 I did not know routerboards were PowerPC? Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 9, 2015, at 4:14 PM, Justin Hibbits 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 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" >> 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"