qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [RFC PATCH 0/4] improve coverage of vector backend


From: Taylor Simpson
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH 0/4] improve coverage of vector backend
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2022 16:33:47 +0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taylor Simpson
> Sent: Wednesday, February 2, 2022 7:45 PM
> To: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org>; richard.henderson@linaro.org;
> qemu-devel@nongnu.org
> Cc: qemu-arm@nongnu.org; fam@euphon.net; berrange@redhat.com;
> f4bug@amsat.org; aurelien@aurel32.net; pbonzini@redhat.com;
> stefanha@redhat.com; crosa@redhat.com
> Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH 0/4] improve coverage of vector backend
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 2, 2022 5:16 PM
> > To: richard.henderson@linaro.org; qemu-devel@nongnu.org
> > Cc: qemu-arm@nongnu.org; fam@euphon.net; berrange@redhat.com;
> > f4bug@amsat.org; aurelien@aurel32.net; pbonzini@redhat.com;
> > stefanha@redhat.com; crosa@redhat.com; Alex Bennée
> > <alex.bennee@linaro.org>; Taylor Simpson <tsimpson@quicinc.com>
> > Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] improve coverage of vector backend
> >
> > Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> writes:
> >
> > > Hi Richard,
> > >
> > > While reviewing the TCG vector clean-ups I tried to improve the
> > > range of instructions we tested. I couldn't get the existing hacky
> > > sha1 test to vectorise nicely so I snarfed the sha512 algorithm from
> > > CCAN. The sha512 test is good because it is all purely integer so we
> > > should be able to use native code on the backend. The test also has
> > > the nice property of validating behaviour.
> >
> > Hi Taylor,
> >
> > You might want to check this out:
> >
> > ✗  ./qemu-hexagon ./tests/tcg/hexagon-linux-user/sha512
> > 1..10
> > not ok 1 - do_test(&tests[i])
> > #     Failed test
> > (/home/alex.bennee/lsrc/qemu.git/tests/tcg/multiarch/sha512.c:main()
> > at line 986) not ok 2 - do_test(&tests[i])
> 
> Thanks for the heads-up.  I'll take a look

Quick update - I ran the test on the hardware and have the same error messages.

So, it doesn't look like a QEMU problem.  I'll investigate if the problem is 
due to something in the toolchain.

Taylor


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]