[llvm] r273148 - [AARCH64] Add support for Broadcom Vulcan

[Pankaj Gode via llvm-commits]

Hi Eric & Renato,

Please let me know if I should take any action, in terms of correction or
modification now or later.

I also want to mention the obvious, that this is a base patch for enabling
Vulcan support.
In subsequent patches, there is a plan to add Vulcan scheduling model and
tuning parameters.

Thanks & Regards,
Pankaj


On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 5:53 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Okay, sounds good!
>
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 5:23 PM Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Oh, right. Diana is going one by one, for every use of "is cpu x", and
>> will submit patches. I'm not sure of the sequence.
>>
>> I remember trying to do something similar in the past but always getting
>> stuck with too many changes. I think her approach to pick lots of small
>> fights (code and bikeshedding) is probably more productive.
>>
>> If you want to share the load, or discuss the overall approach, you
>> better coordinate / discuss that on the bug, as she can give you a better
>> overview.
>>
>> We're finally doing some much needed refactoring in the arm and AArch64
>> back ends, so any additional pair of eyes (and hands) is welcome! :-)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Renato
>> On 21 Jun 2016 1:11 a.m., "Eric Christopher" <echristo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yep. That's exactly what needs to be done - hence me asking why the
>>> subtarget cpus were seen to be a good idea.
>>>
>>> -eric
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 5:09 PM Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Basically, https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=27992
>>>> On 21 Jun 2016 1:00 a.m., "Eric Christopher" <echristo at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 3:34 PM Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 20 June 2016 at 23:25, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> > That said, one way I've seen these sorts of things being used is via
>>>>>> > ST->isCPUX() for TTI and a few other things which is fairly valid.
>>>>>> We might
>>>>>> > need a better way of doing that, basically defining the name of the
>>>>>> cpu as a
>>>>>> > subtarget feature is a bit wonky really.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We're moving things from isCPUX to hasFeature to get rid of long
>>>>>> conditionals (isX || isY || isZ || ... ) and to make matters clear why
>>>>>> is it that way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But that doesn't preclude us from getting rid of the feature name and
>>>>>> its bad usage. We just want to keep the feature-based code gen, that's
>>>>>> all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Btw, there are patches coming on ARM to replace isCPUX with target
>>>>>> features from us in the next few days / weeks, so we may want to wait
>>>>>> until that's done to refactor the SubtargetFeature list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Seems reasonable. I'm curious which way you're going so if you
>>>>> wouldn't mind adding me here I'd appreciate it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>> -eric
>>>>>
>>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20160621/067f6466/attachment.html>