Track and investigate performance regression areas for GCC

Registered by Ramana Radhakrishnan

We would like to be able to track performance regressions along certain parameters in terms of GCC for Cortex A9.

When run on a Cortex A9, the following should be true:
 * A9 vs A8: code tuned with -mtune=cortex-a9 should run faster than the same code tuned with -mtune=cortex-a8
 * ARMv7 vs ARMv5: code built with -march=armv7-a should run faster than the same code built for earlier architectures easpecially -march=armv5te
 * Thumb-2 vs ARM: ARM code is typically faster than Thumb-2, but Thumb-2 code should run at at least 90 % of the speed of ARM code.

NEON vs non-NEON is covered in a vectoriser blueprint.

Blueprint information

Status:
Complete
Approver:
Michael Hope
Priority:
High
Drafter:
Ramana Radhakrishnan
Direction:
Needs approval
Assignee:
None
Definition:
Approved
Series goal:
Accepted for 4.6
Implementation:
Informational Informational
Milestone target:
milestone icon backlog
Started by
Matthew Gretton-Dann
Completed by
Matthew Gretton-Dann

Related branches

Sprints

Whiteboard

[2013-05-21 matthew-gretton-dann] Blueprint superseded by TCWG-65

Work Items (reported):
Investigate and upstream enhancement requests for performance (1w): TODO
Prototype fix 1: TODO
Prototype fix 2: TODO
Implement and upstream if applicable: TODO

Work items (a8-vs-a9):
Compare mtune=cortex-a8 vs mtune=cortex-a9 (1w): TODO
Investigate fixes for Cortex-A8 vs Cortex-A9 regressions (1w): TODO
Fix round 1: TODO
Fix round 2: TODO
Fix round 3: TODO
Upstream: TODO

Work items (v5-vs-v7):
Compare performance of -march=armv5te and -march=armv7-a for A9 (1w): TODO
Fix round 1: TODO
Fix round 2: TODO
Fix round 3: TODO
Upstream: TODO

Note: please change the generic 'Fix round n' for actual titles as the issues are found. Delete any that aren't needed.

(?)

Work Items

Dependency tree

* Blueprints in grey have been implemented.

This blueprint contains Public information 
Everyone can see this information.