e500 SPE support

[Thomas Rix]

I have a p2020rdb I would prefer to use but it doesn¹t 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
 
---
Tom Rix
Sr. Staff Compiler Engineer
trix at juniper.net





On 10/9/15, 2:14 PM, "Justin Hibbits" <chmeeedalf at 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 at 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 at juniper.net
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/4/15, 9:14 PM, "owner-freebsd-ppc at freebsd.org on behalf of Justin
>> Hibbits" <owner-freebsd-ppc at freebsd.org on behalf of
>>chmeeedalf at 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 at freebsd.org mailing list
>>>https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ppc
>>>To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ppc-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>>