| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
J.F.
Joined: 22 Feb 2004
Posts: 2906
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 11:16 am Post subject: gcc 4? |
 |
|
I was checking out Fedora Core 4 test 1 the other day. It comes with gcc 4.0 standard. Is any work toward gcc 4 for PS2 going on? It seems to have stopped at 3.2.2.
By the way, the current dev branch of gcc is 4.1. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Neil Stevens
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 79
Location: California
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 12:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What value does gcc 4 bring?
Does it represent as much of a slowdown vs gcc 3 as gcc 3 did vs 2.95? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ooPo
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Jan 2004
Posts: 2032
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 1:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Slower compiles for faster code? Yeah, that sucks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J.F.
Joined: 22 Feb 2004
Posts: 2906
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Drakonite
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Jan 2004
Posts: 989
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I guess gcc 3.2.3 or 3.3 or whatever the number was has a new mips core that should give a lot better results, however it also means our patches would no longer work. In other words, it'd be a lot of work to get it working.
As far as I'm concerned, gcc 4 is still too much of an unknown to worry about it for now. We spend too much time on tools and not enough on better projects anyways ;)
_________________
Shoot Pixels Not People!
Makeshift Development |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neil Stevens
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 79
Location: California
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 2:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ooPo wrote: | | Slower compiles for faster code? Yeah, that sucks. |
During development, yeah, it's horrible. Slowdowns for optimized release code are fine, but not for debug versions.
Edit: Looks like it's actually faster, though, fortunately:
| Quote: | | When compiling without optimizations (-O0), the C++ frontend is much faster than in any previous versions of GCC. Independent testers have measured speed-ups up to 25% in real-world production code, compared to the 3.4 family (which was already the fastest version to date). Upgrading from older versions might show even bigger improvements. |
It's about time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrbrown
Joined: 17 Jan 2004
Posts: 1536
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
bd started work on porting the 3.2.3 patches to 4.x. Alas, it seems he's too busy bringing jihad to PSP infidels to respond in this thread :P.
How far did you get bd?
_________________
"He was warned..." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackdroid
Joined: 17 Jan 2004
Posts: 564
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I came quite far, new datatypes, mmi and cop2 was okish, but and this is a reason for seppuku, cause any coder knows the value of backing up his/hers work, yet in a crititcal moment I failed to comply to the tradition set before us by the great masters of this universe, and all the stances and techniques are now lost.
Atm I have only downloaded the sources, but I intend to start again. doing it over cvs would be a good start I reckon.
_________________
Kung VU |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackdroid
Joined: 17 Jan 2004
Posts: 564
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Neil Stevens wrote: | Looks like it's actually faster, though, fortunately:
When compiling without optimizations (-O0), the C++ frontend is much faster than in any previous versions of GCC. Independent testers have measured speed-ups up to 25% in real-world production code, compared to the 3.4 family (which was already the fastest version to date). Upgrading from older versions might show even bigger improvements. |
3.4 generated alot better code than 3.2.2 and I saw some major possibilities with the DFA engine, 4.x has taken it all to a new level, so yes alot better code is indeed possible, and for sure reason enough to bother about 4.x, it will take some time but its interesting work :)
_________________
Kung VU |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J.F.
Joined: 22 Feb 2004
Posts: 2906
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2005 5:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| blackdroid wrote: | I came quite far, new datatypes, mmi and cop2 was okish, but and this is a reason for seppuku, cause any coder knows the value of backing up his/hers work, yet in a crititcal moment I failed to comply to the tradition set before us by the great masters of this universe, and all the stances and techniques are now lost.
Atm I have only downloaded the sources, but I intend to start again. doing it over cvs would be a good start I reckon. |
I've done that before. Did that three times on one project. The fourth time through, it goes much faster and you're a lot more careful about saving for some weird reason. ;) :-D |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
evilo
Joined: 22 Apr 2004
Posts: 230
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 12:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
hi all,
any news on GCC 4.0 for the PS2 ? I know that most of the poeple don't care anymore.. but others yes :)
can we help with the porting or something ?
thx. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ixar
Joined: 26 Sep 2006
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello !
I am new over there, and I may help retrofitting gcc 3.2 stuff into the new 4.0 version. If you have already done some work, I can try to complete it as far as I can.
Regards,
Ixar
PS: I have already read the gcc 3.2 patches. And a lot of messages on this forum. If you have any pointer I should refer to, don't hesitate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
evilo
Joined: 22 Apr 2004
Posts: 230
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ixar
Joined: 26 Sep 2006
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes I already had a look at the SVN files. I have read most of the patches to understand the goal of the patches.
However I need to read more documentation (I am still reading) to understand how to implement properly the code into gcc4.
I will do a summary of the different things that needs to be patched, and were I will do the patch to make sure I don't forget anything, and that I have clearly understood. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ixar
Joined: 26 Sep 2006
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 11:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
According to the patch comments, it seems that their is some differences between PS2 Linux kit toolchain and the homebrew ps2dev toolchain.
I need more information on that. Is it related to the RTE ?
For my own test, I have ps2 linux kit dvd. (Just bought yesterday).
If something can be done to manage differences between RTE/non-RTE compilation, I may do it properly if I have the information. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ixar
Joined: 26 Sep 2006
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 4:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have studied the binutils part of the toolchain.
I will implement the r5900 starting from mips r1000 as it's the only way to do it properly even if it's more similar to the r3000. Since we can't disable instruction properly from the r3000... I am relying on binutils 1.14 patches for that part of the work. It should be pretty fast since it's almost good in the patch.
gcc stuff seems more tricky. But I will see that when binutils is ready. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
