Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 21:27:25 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Juli Mallett <juli@clockworksquid.com> Cc: Warner Losh <imp@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-mips@freebsd.org" <freebsd-mips@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Can we undo the octeon hack? Message-ID: <83EA6D99-9B5F-400A-BC79-BE4D16255A84@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <CACVs6=_ah0n1vrE-MGPY5FZFKod4Lb3nAztatvn8Gu6R6UZU=w@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAJ-VmonJg2BhBdckFb1O79ZnWrXKZhT%2Bku9SjuswLui6iZC1Ow@mail.gmail.com> <6401792509903023722@unknownmsgid> <F0B68A50-B5BF-426E-874C-1EFC03CAEAEB@bsdimp.com> <CACVs6=_Ss_C0v_eHFzOsM1QKi43EU4j3SUmOTsC=XmhMFPqeAw@mail.gmail.com> <8C6BE511-2CCD-434F-BE72-43F350E8AA2C@bsdimp.com> <CACVs6=9mjoB7LQ4OkvT7CJ8b0cG_G9o9XJsAauqxUYwo7MFpkQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-VmoniT-2cX9y%2BcfQJQ7OwMnbvjB1gTHym_LT=ngy8AnuN2g@mail.gmail.com> <CACVs6=8VT0dQug%2B8od45VvoJQn1f-2j%2Bu%2BidMXC3SFz9iLyd7A@mail.gmail.com> <793CB840-40AF-487E-99A0-2C34FF17FD11@bsdimp.com> <CACVs6=_ah0n1vrE-MGPY5FZFKod4Lb3nAztatvn8Gu6R6UZU=w@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jul 21, 2013, at 9:18 PM, Juli Mallett wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:
>>=20
>> On Jul 21, 2013, at 9:00 PM, Juli Mallett wrote:
>>> I know I shouldn't say this, but: How hard can it be? :P
>>=20
>> How hard do you want it to be?
>>=20
>>> In kern.pre.mk:
>>>=20
>>> CFLAGS_PARAM_INLINE_UNIT_GROWTH?=3D100
>>> CFLAGS_PARAM_LARGE_FUNCTION_GROWTH?=3D1000
>>> CFLAGS_PARAM_MAX_INLINE_INSNS_SINGLE?=3D/* XXX what is default? */
>>> CFLAGS+=3D --param =
inline-unit-growth=3D${CFLAGS_PARAM_INLINE_UNIT_GROWTH}
>>> CFLAGS+=3D --param =
large-function-growth=3D${CFLAGS_PARAM_LARGE_FUNCTION_GROWTH}
>>> CFLAGS+=3D --param =
max-inline-insns-single=3D${CFLAGS_PARAM_MAX_INLINE_INSNS_SINGLE}
>>>=20
>>> And then in the Octeon config:
>>>=20
>>> makeoptions CFLAGS_PARAM_INLINE_UNIT_GROWTH=3D10000
>>> makeoptions CFLAGS_PARAM_LARGE_FUNCTION_GROWTH=3D100000
>>> makeoptions CFLAGS_PARAM_MAX_INLINE_INSNS_SINGLE=3D10000
>>>=20
>>> Right?
>>=20
>> Other than being completely wrong, this looks good... :)
>>=20
>>> Come up with a better name scheme, win 1/20 of 1 US cent. (Not
>>> redeemable for cash.)
>>>=20
>>> Most users will never see it; only Octeon needs such behaviour =
because
>>> of how the Simple Executive is implemented.
>>=20
>> Except we'd need it in every octeon config file :(
>=20
> We have a lot of stuff we need in every Octeon config file already, I
> don't see this as making that worse. std.octeon or whatever it's
> called would be fine, too. I just don't care for the NetBSD-ish std.*
> system and don't make much use of it myself, but it seems reasonable
> to put it there, since one already exists. Oh, wait, that's misnamed
> "std.octeon1" so let's refuse to do anything about that, too? :P
I used to hate the std.foo stuff, but after putting nearly all the SoC =
specific glue for dozens of different SoCs over on the ARM side in them, =
I began to see its wisdom...
Warner=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?83EA6D99-9B5F-400A-BC79-BE4D16255A84>