From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16224 invoked by alias); 19 Mar 2004 15:19:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 16217 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2004 15:19:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (66.30.197.194) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Mar 2004 15:19:00 -0000 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 650D92B92; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:18:59 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <405B0F63.8050403@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 15:19:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040217 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Sandiford , cgd@broadcom.com Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa/mips] Second go at vr5500 hilo hazard fix References: <87oequw5xw.fsf@redhat.com> <87znadvpr7.fsf@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <87znadvpr7.fsf@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00452.txt.bz2 > cgd@broadcom.com writes: > >>> Now that the mips sim 'multi' bits are in place (including good >>> default), and we have MIPS_MACH(SD) (thanks! 8-), it should be >>> possible to code a simple macro which checks for the appropriate bfd >>> machine, and decides whether interlocks are present. > > > Well, I had a similar check in: > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-11/msg00642.html > > OK, so it wasn't wrapped up in a nice macro, it just checked the > architecture directly: > > + /* There are no timing requirements in vr5500 code. */ > + if (MIPS_MACH (SD) == bfd_mach_mips5500) > + return 1; > > But that was exactly what Andrew objected to: > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-11/msg00668.html FYI, I think the comment still stands - I'm describing how IGEN is ment to be used (and is what Richard's patch does). (Richard thanks for pokeing at this), Andrew > Then there was: > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-12/msg00080.html > > To quote: > > As for having to tag each individual entry in the .igen file with an > explicit CPU. Yes, that sux. However, I also believe that it has > significantly reduced the overall error rate (no more breaking one > target by editing another) and that benefit vastly outweighs the short > term pain. > > Richard >