linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: gcc support of mips32 release 2

To: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
Subject: Re: gcc support of mips32 release 2
From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 14:47:02 +0100 (CET)
Cc: Dominic Sweetman <dom@mips.com>, Eric Christopher <echristo@redhat.com>, Long Li <long21st@yahoo.com>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, David Ung <davidu@mips.com>, Nigel Stephens <nigel@mips.com>
In-reply-to: <20040318213713.GC25815@linux-mips.org>
Organization: Technical University of Gdansk
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <20040305075517.42647.qmail@web40404.mail.yahoo.com> <1078478086.4308.14.camel@dzur.sfbay.redhat.com> <16456.21112.570245.1011@arsenal.mips.com> <Pine.LNX.4.55.0403181404210.5750@jurand.ds.pg.gda.pl> <20040318213713.GC25815@linux-mips.org>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004, Ralf Baechle wrote:

> Take a look at the 68020 to see where instruction set madness can lead:
> 
>       movel   ([42, a0, d0.2*2],123), ([43, a0, d0.2*2], 22)
>       bfextu  ([42, a0, d0.2*2],123){8:8}, d2
> 
> And I haven't even started bitching about CALLM's bloat over jsr on a
> system with MMU disabled or the fantastic complexities it offers with
> all gadgets enabled.  Probably desigend for MACH but in the end just
> useless no known OS used them and Moto removed them again for the 030.

 But m68k isn't exactly RISC and high code density was a priority over
microcode simplicty (or absence) for the architecture.

-- 
+  Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland   +
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
+        e-mail: macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl, PGP key available        +

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>