Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 16, 2010, at 6:04 AM, Richard Guenther <richard.guent...@gmail.com > wrote:

On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 5:52 PM, Siarhei Siamashka
<siarhei.siamas...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,

Currently gcc (at least version 4.5.0) does a very poor job generating single
precision floating point code for ARM Cortex-A8.

The source of this problem is the use of VFP instructions which are run on a slow nonpipelined VFP Lite unit in Cortex-A8. Even turning on RunFast mode (flush denormals to zero, disable exceptions) just provides a relatively minor
performance gain.

The right solution seems to be the use of NEON instructions for doing most of
the single precision calculations.

I wonder if it would be difficult to introduce the following changes to the
gcc generated code when optimizing for cortex-a8:
1. Allocate single precision variables only to evenly or oddly numbered
s-registers.
2. Instead of using 'fadds s0, s0, s2' or similar instructions, do
'vadd.f32 d0, d0, d1' instead.

The number of single precision floating point registers gets effectively
halved this way. Supporting '-mfloat-abi=hard' may be a bit tricky
(packing/unpacking of register pairs may be needed to ensure proper parameters passing to functions). Also there may be other problems, like dealing with strict IEEE-754 compliance (maybe a special variable attribute for relaxing compliance requirements could be useful). But this looks like the only
solution to fix poor performance on ARM Cortex-A8 processor.

Actually clang 2.7 seems to be working exactly this way. And it is
outperforming gcc 4.5.0 by up to a factor of 2 or 3 on some single precision
floating point tests that I tried on ARM Cortex-A8.

On i?86 we have -mfpmath={sse,x87}, I suppose you could add
-mfpmath=neon for arm (properly conflicting with -mfloat-abi=hard
and requiring neon support).

Except unlike sse, neon does not fully support IEEE support. So this should only be done with -ffast-math :). The point that it is slow is not good enough to change it to be something that is wrong and fast.


Richard.

--
Best regards,
Siarhei Siamashka

Reply via email to