| To: | Richard Hodges <rh@matriplex.com> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Disabling lwl and lwr instruction generation |
| From: | Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org> |
| Date: | Thu, 13 Mar 2003 02:33:45 +0100 |
| Cc: | Ranjan Parthasarathy <ranjanp@efi.com>, "'linux-mips@linux-mips.org'" <linux-mips@linux-mips.org> |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.BSF.4.50.0303121647400.95890-100000@mail.matriplex.com>; from rh@matriplex.com on Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 04:50:53PM -0800 |
| Original-recipient: | rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| References: | <D9F6B9DABA4CAE4B92850252C52383AB0796823C@ex-eng-corp.efi.com> <20030313014338.C29568@linux-mips.org> <Pine.BSF.4.50.0303121647400.95890-100000@mail.matriplex.com> |
| Sender: | linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.2.5.1i |
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 04:50:53PM -0800, Richard Hodges wrote: > I got lwl and lwr from a memcpy() with two void pointers... > > I quickly changed those to the (aligned) structure pointers instead, and > then memcpy() changed to ordinary word loads and stores. > > So, is somebody starting a toolchain for that new Chinese CPU? :-) Wouldn't be the first processor without lwl/lwr instructions. There have been a few that didn't implement it for silly bean^Wgate counting issues others have done it for patent and licensing reasons. (Afair MIPS's patent is about to expire and IBM's prior art patent in the same area is even way older but that legalese ...) Ralf |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Disabling lwl and lwr instruction generation, Ralf Baechle |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [PATCH] memory leak in ptrace, Jun Sun |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Disabling lwl and lwr instruction generation, Richard Hodges |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Disabling lwl and lwr instruction generation, Zhang Fuxin |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |