| To: | Kumba <kumba@gentoo.org> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH]: R10000 Needs LL/SC Workaround in Gcc |
| From: | Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford@googlemail.com> |
| Date: | Sat, 01 Nov 2008 17:41:30 +0000 |
| Cc: | gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Linux MIPS List <linux-mips@linux-mips.org> |
| Dkim-signature: | v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:mail-followup-to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent :mime-version:content-type; bh=7ukXR8OVOckUiENM3ccYv+2tSTaUC+BTCGjwUT9tAbM=; b=PqbWDGhaNNqbEKrHTOyOGnqWItaeFvMWltdq8G5x9o5OPs/ujMbkxJAa5Ypm+kYNQi qSCh2C7n/sXpGT/8ABYCbxq0uF1bDHNvUUFj2ReYh/nRxtjln+tEuNBCSB8IDNYImvxB Xdbgv9qvgSTqaSDNA4rhhaB+sD5BSN4U3Fvnk= |
| Domainkey-signature: | a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:mail-followup-to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; b=VIjIGPOKxXHRReenwH77Fj9fA7slyW/IOzBGeIlgLIIlvvly/OLvqV6uwQD4fRU1go MMU7JC7+H4PmZeq//YbY4IkV0EDE/Boz+Uhi2T8nZL8QuhgXYPR13VyuznLEyiBoN7FJ 1STWjWYfCfV/s4mOtmkWU5kUz1ovSZZCa6lS0= |
| In-reply-to: | <490C05A9.9070707@gentoo.org> (kumba@gentoo.org's message of "Sat\, 01 Nov 2008 03\:30\:49 -0400") |
| Mail-followup-to: | Kumba <kumba@gentoo.org>,gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Linux MIPS List <linux-mips@linux-mips.org>, rdsandiford@googlemail.com |
| Original-recipient: | rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| References: | <490A90F4.6040601@gentoo.org> <490C05A9.9070707@gentoo.org> |
| Sender: | linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org |
| User-agent: | Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux) |
Kumba <kumba@gentoo.org> writes: > Kumba wrote: >> The attached patch adds a workaround to have gcc emit branch likely >> instructions (beqzl) in atomic operations for R10000 CPUs. This is >> because revisions of this CPU before 3.0 misbehave, while revisions 2.6 >> and earlier will deadlock. This issue has been noted on SGI IP28 >> (Indigo2 Impact R10000) systems and SGI IP27 Origin systems. >> >> After creating a patch to glibc based off of Debian Bug #462112 >> (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=462112), it was >> suggested by David Daney that a similar patch be created for GCC. >> >> Feedback would be welcome on any suggestions for improving this patch >> (please CC, as I'm not subscribed to the ML). >> >> Thanks! > > Oops, typo in my first patch. Stray parenthesis around the macro > check. Fixed patch is included. > > I'm wondering whether this should be limited to _MIPS_ARCH_R10000, > though. Maybe _MIPS_ARCH_MIPS4 instead, because the R10000 is at > minimum, a MIPS-IV CPU, and there might be cases where a userland > compiled with -march=mips4 could get used instead of one optimized for > -march=r10000? > > Or would MIPS-II be better, which is when the branch likely > instruction was added? As Maciej said, this should really be controlled by an -mfix-r10000 command-line option, not by the _MIPS_ARCH_* macro. (In this context, _MIPS_ARCH_* is a property of the compiler that you're using to build gcc itself.) There are two ways we could handle this: - Make -mfix-r10000 require -mbranch-likely. (It mustn't _imply_ -mbranch-likely. It should simply check that -mbranch-likely is already in effect.) - Make -mfix-r10000 insert nops when -mbranch-likely is not in effect. Richard |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH]: R10000 Needs LL/SC Workaround in Glibc, James Perkins |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH]: R10000 Needs LL/SC Workaround in Gcc, Kumba |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH]: R10000 Needs LL/SC Workaround in Gcc, Kumba |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH]: R10000 Needs LL/SC Workaround in Gcc, Kumba |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |