linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFC] Optimize swab operations on mips_r2 cpu

To: "Kevin D. Kissell" <kevink@mips.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Optimize swab operations on mips_r2 cpu
From: Franck <vagabon.xyz@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 16:02:35 +0100
Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=MqSGZrX4HUMSaSVYFOUzzDbWavfojgNq667PoElkNvxRdVspHgONLRFOuodjArL6xEnbwvSxbHJ1V+Dslb4MM2OL37utEossOlhlc7uAqdBp2KRC4D/RbRIzt2smczSWpWJGwxf79cM03xkz7YhPUB6qkj/g75jsJnq9jVwKmfk=
In-reply-to: <43D7C050.5090607@mips.com>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <cda58cb80601250136p5ee350e6g@mail.gmail.com> <20060125124738.GA3454@linux-mips.org> <cda58cb80601250534r5f464fd1v@mail.gmail.com> <43D78725.6050300@mips.com> <20060125141424.GE3454@linux-mips.org> <cda58cb80601250632r3e8f7b9en@mail.gmail.com> <20060125150404.GF3454@linux-mips.org> <cda58cb80601251003m6ba4379w@mail.gmail.com> <43D7C050.5090607@mips.com>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
Kevin

2006/1/25, Kevin D. Kissell <kevink@mips.com>:
> Not really.  As we discussed at the time, the 4KSc is a superset of
> MIPS32 which includes some, but not all MIPS32R2 features (plus other
> stuff), and the 4KSd is a strict superset of MIPS32R2.  So some additional
> information is required to express the desired support.  I was just pointing
> out, in the case of the SWAB optimizations, that there was no need to invent
> yet another way of describing MIPS32R2.
>

I'm trying to use CPU_MIPS32_R2 instead of CPU_4KD in order to get rid
of the last macro. So now to compile the kernel I'm using somthing
like:

        mipsel-linux-gcc -march=mips32r2 -Wa,-32 -Wa,-mips32r2 -msmartmips

instead of

        mipsel-linux-gcc -march=4ksd -Wa,-32 -Wa,-mips32r2 -msmartmips

Now the size of the kernel code is 33Ko bigger ! I have no idea
why...I tried to add -mips16e option but it fails to compile...Do you
have an idea ?

Thanks
--
               Franck

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