Thanks for all the feedback and conversation, all! Here is a summary of what I have generated…
Data: https://drive.proton.me/urls/503GADCXJM#OtYw1dINdlpP
Cores/Architectures:
- OpenHW CV32E40P v1.3.2
- RV32I
- RV32IM
- RV32IMC
- RV32IMFC
- OpenHW CV32E40X commit b658fbe0
- RV32I
- RV32IM
- RV32IMC
- RV32IMC_Zba_Zbb_Zbc
Toolchain: Embecosm RISC-V GCC 13.1.0
Optimization levels: “-msave-restore -Oz”, “-Oz”, “-msave-restore -Os”, “-Os”, “-msave-restore -O2”, “-O2”, “-O3”, “-Ofast”
Metrics:
- From build:
- object size
- app size
- # instructions
- # 32b
- # 16b
- From simulation:
- # cycles
- # retired
- # fetches
- # loads
- # stores
Best,
Jennifer
- ARM Performance gain over 7 GCC generations [DONE, in paper]
- Code size different ARM vs RISC-V [Embench done, need for CoreMark & Dhrystone] - based on GCC
- Performance change if optimize for code size for ARM and RISC-V - based on GCC
- Code size change if optimize for performance for ARM and RISC-V - based on GCC
- Performance/Code size change if use CLANG for ARM and RISC-V
- Performance/Code size change if use LLVM for ARM and RISC-V
- Performance/Code size change if add M extension to RV32I - based on GCC
- Performance/Code size change if add C extension to RV32IM - based on GCC
- Performance/Code size change if add BitManip extension to RV32IMC - based on GCC
- Performance/Code size change if add F extension to RV32IMCB (should be zero) - based on GCC
- Performance/Code size change if add D extension to RV32IMCBF (should be zero) - based on GCC
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Embench" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to embench+u...@lists.librecores.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lists.librecores.org/d/msgid/embench/A7D882A8-FED4-42B5-AF65-FC3C68686796%40rice.edu.