From: Doug Evans <dje@google.com>
To: Joel Sherrill <joel.sherrill@oarcorp.com>
Cc: Tiemen Schut <T.Schut@sron.nl>,
"gdb-patches@sourceware.org" <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] sim/erc32/ max simulation time extended by using 64bit ints
Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 17:48:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <AANLkTikAlUpiLOBDzW8fVjEUAsBoC-JcJpMRvJlzGdma@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4BE08E95.5040500@oarcorp.com>
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Joel Sherrill <joel.sherrill@oarcorp.com> wrote:
>> 1)
>>
>> -#define VAL(x) strtol(x,(char **)NULL,0)
>> +#define VAL(x) strtoull(x,(char **)NULL,0)
>>
>> I realize VAL is only used once in interf.c but it's also defined in
>> other files as well.
>> While one could consolidate them, having the macro at all is probably
>> less preferable to just calling strtoul{,l} directly.
>> I would just remove it from interf.c and call strtoull directly.
>>
>
> I have fixed this in interf.c. But didn't touch the other files.
> Is this OK?
Sure.
> I can do a second patch after this is merged if you want VAL killed.
Naaa, no need.
>> 2)
>>
>> @@ -338,10 +338,10 @@
>>
>> int
>> sim_fetch_register(sd, regno, buf, length)
>> - SIM_DESC sd;
>> - int regno;
>> - unsigned char *buf;
>> - int length;
>> + SIM_DESC sd;
>> + int regno;
>> + unsigned char *buf;
>> + int length;
>> {
>> get_regi(&sregs, regno, buf);
>> return -1;
>> @@ -349,10 +349,10 @@
>>
>> int
>> sim_write(sd, mem, buf, length)
>> - SIM_DESC sd;
>> - SIM_ADDR mem;
>> + SIM_DESC sd;
>> + SIM_ADDR mem;
>> const unsigned char *buf;
>> - int length;
>> + int length;
>> {
>> return (sis_memory_write(mem, buf, length));
>> }
>>
>> Generally, formatting changes/fixes should be separate. I noticed a
>> few, can you remove them?
>>
>
> The ones you are citing above are my fault. I used a
> very new version of gcc to compile this when checking
> his patch and it complained. I got near the code and
> fixed it. Sorry.
I'm not sure what gcc complained about, but it's not important.
I noticed the whitespace changes are still there. Am I looking at the
wrong patch?
btw, there's no need for another iteration of approvals just for that.
>> 3)
>>
>> +#include "stdint.h"
>>
>> That should be<stdint.h>
>>
>
> Fixed.
Thanks.
>>
>> 4)
>>
>> - uint32 ildreg; /* Destination of last load instruction */
>> + uint64 ildreg; /* Destination of last load instruction */
>>
>> No point in making this uint64, leave it as uint32.
>>
>>
>
> Fixed.
Thanks.
>>
>> 5)
>>
>> + * sis.c, func.c, sis.h, interf.c: Increase max simulation time
>> + by using uint64 for relevant counters.
>>
>> I realize sim/erc32/ChangeLog doesn't always follow the GNU
>> conventions for ChangeLog entries - it's software obtained from
>> elsewhere. It's ok with me to leave as is, but I defer to someone
>> else with an opinion.
>>
>>
>
> What specifically are you noticing here?
>
> I looked around and didn't spot anything too offensive.
For reference sake,
compare that entry with, for example, this one:
2010-04-19 Doug Evans <dje@google.com>
* ser-base.c (generic_readchar): Watch for EOF in read of error_fd.
* ser-pipe.c (pipe_open): Fix file descriptor leaks.
(pipe_close): Ditto.
Note that there's a separate entry for each function changed.
But as I say, I wouldn't insist on this for erc32.
> FWIW Doug I think you have a script which is helping with
> your ChangeLog entries and it has (or had) a bug. Look
> at this one from sim/ChangeLog:
>
> 2010-02-11 Doug Evans <dje@sebabeach.org>
>
> * cris/cpuv10.h, * cris/cpuv32.h, * cris/cris-desc.c,
> * cris/cris-desc.h, * cris/decodev10.c, * cris/decodev32.c,
> * cris/modelv10.c, * cris/modelv32.c, * cris/semcrisv10f-switch.c,
> * cris/semcrisv32f-switch.c: Regenerate.
>
> I don't think there should be a ", *" between the files. :-D
I loathe having one line per file, where each line says the same thing.
Too low an S/N ratio for my tastes, especially with a lot of files. :-(
So I copied a style I saw in opcodes.
If Alan [Modra] can do that in opcodes, I can do that in the sims.
[And thank goodness. :-)]
>
> My helper script has its own oddities. LOL
>>
>> 6) I'm assuming this change has been well tested.
>>
>
> I've used it for RTEMS testing.
Cool.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-05-07 17:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-04-23 13:25 Tiemen Schut
2010-04-23 20:28 ` Doug Evans
2010-05-04 21:16 ` Joel Sherrill
2010-05-07 17:48 ` Doug Evans [this message]
2010-05-17 2:08 ` Joel Brobecker
2010-05-17 3:23 ` Joel Sherrill
2010-05-17 16:37 ` Doug Evans
2010-05-17 16:59 ` Joel Brobecker
2010-05-20 23:13 ` Joel Brobecker
2010-05-21 13:47 ` Joel Sherrill
2010-05-21 15:06 ` Joel Brobecker
2010-05-21 15:15 ` Joel Sherrill
2010-05-21 17:13 ` Doug Evans
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=AANLkTikAlUpiLOBDzW8fVjEUAsBoC-JcJpMRvJlzGdma@mail.gmail.com \
--to=dje@google.com \
--cc=T.Schut@sron.nl \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=joel.sherrill@oarcorp.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox