From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24163 invoked by alias); 18 Mar 2004 20:55:15 -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 24154 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2004 20:55:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Mar 2004 20:55:14 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (nat-pool-rdu-dmz.redhat.com [172.16.52.200] (may be forged)) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i2IKtC4b004742 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 15:55:12 -0500 Received: from localhost (vpn50-45.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.45]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i2IKt5M05519; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 15:55:10 -0500 Received: from rsandifo by localhost with local (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1B44YW-0006MY-00; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 20:55:56 +0000 To: 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> From: Richard Sandiford Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 20:55:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (cgd@broadcom.com's message of "18 Mar 2004 09:56:52 -0800") Message-ID: <87znadvpr7.fsf@redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-RedHat-Spam-Score: 0 X-SW-Source: 2004-03.o/txt/msg00434.txt 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 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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24163 invoked by alias); 18 Mar 2004 20:55:15 -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 24154 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2004 20:55:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Mar 2004 20:55:14 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (nat-pool-rdu-dmz.redhat.com [172.16.52.200] (may be forged)) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i2IKtC4b004742 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 15:55:12 -0500 Received: from localhost (vpn50-45.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.45]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i2IKt5M05519; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 15:55:10 -0500 Received: from rsandifo by localhost with local (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1B44YW-0006MY-00; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 20:55:56 +0000 To: 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> From: Richard Sandiford Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:09:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (cgd@broadcom.com's message of "18 Mar 2004 09:56:52 -0800") Message-ID: <87znadvpr7.fsf@redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-RedHat-Spam-Score: 0 X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00434.txt.bz2 Message-ID: <20040319000900.7-2rUvoOmeFFs7Eij6r_tYob_GU-iDsjIXgHffuRvyo@z> 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 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