Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 22:07:14 +0000 From: Thomas Rix <trix@juniper.net> To: Justin Hibbits <chmeeedalf@gmail.com> Cc: "freebsd-ppc@FreeBSD.org" <freebsd-ppc@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: e500 SPE support Message-ID: <D23D8785.F0DB%trix@juniper.net> 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 have a p2020rdb I would prefer to use but it doesn=B9t seem to have freebsd kernel support so toolchain work is only on linux. Please send me a link to where you bought your board, I will see about getting one. Thanks, Tom =20 --- Tom Rix Sr. Staff Compiler Engineer trix@juniper.net On 10/9/15, 2:14 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" >>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?D23D8785.F0DB%trix>