extended instructions(NEON) get stuck

[David.K (Passmark)]

Could you send us the name of the device you're using and where you purchased it?

We might look into buying one ourselves to get to the bottom of this issue.

[arvin]

should the right one from time point of view, thanks.

[David.K (Passmark)]

Thought that would have fixed the problem.

Could you upload the "debug.log" file from that build?

[arvin]

Thanks for new version trying, looks CPU Mark still Incomplete as attached.

[David.K (Passmark)]

Thanks for that, I think we've tracked down the problem.

Looks like a problem with ARMv7 CPU's with neon extensions but missing the CPU extended instruction vfpv4. It seems vfpv4 is in most v7 CPUs but not all. It was made standard in ARMv8.

Could you try this PerformanceTest build (pt_linux_arm32_debug10.1.1005) and let us know if it works.

[arvin]

please find attached for simd_debug.log file. thanks.

[arvin]

popped up "Illegal instruction" while executing ./simd_arm32_10.1.1004.2, not sure if there's anything wrong?

[David.K (Passmark)]

Memory Mark is only testing the RAM.
Disk Mark tests the storage, but that test suite is not available on linux.

This is turning out to be a tricky problem to track down.

Could you download and run this build (simd_arm32_10.1.1004.2), it's the SIMD test only with additional debug info.

It should run in < 10 seconds, if it takes any longer press Ctrl + C to exit the program.

It will create a debug file called "simd_debug.log"

[arvin]

Does Memory Mark include both flash and RAM performance?

[arvin]

Did testing for "pt_linux_arm32_debug10.1.1004.1" with “-p 1” and normal, both debug.log uploaded fyi, thanks.

[David.K (Passmark)]

Can you test this new build "pt_linux_arm32_debug10.1.1004.1", again with "-p 1"

If it works with "-p 1" (i.e. the score for SIMD test is > 0) could you also try running it without any command line arguments and upload the "debug.log" file either way.

Thanks.

[arvin]

Attached log with "pt_linux_arm32_debug10.1.1003.2" fyi, thanks.

[David.K (Passmark)]

That debug.log looks like it is from the first build.

It might not have been clear but I meant using the second build from my last reply.

The program should be called "pt_linux_arm32_debug10.1.1003.2"

[arvin]

Did test with process "-p 1" and upload the debug.log file accordingly, thanks.

[David.K (Passmark)]

Can you run this build with only 1 test process "-p 1" and upload the debug.log file.