Kumba <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> 2) Implement both (a) and (b). In this case, any gcc code guarded
>> by TARGET_FIX_R10000 would need to check whether branch-likely
>> instructions are available. If they are, we can use either
>> workaround (a) or workaroudn (b). If they aren't, we must
>> use workaround (b).
> I think it's better to target this path. While it's probably an
> extremely rare case, because this problem only affects a specific set
> of processor revisions, triggering a problem only noticed (so far) on
> SGI machines running Linux, I tend to err on the side of caution and
> think it's probably a good idea to do it right the first time.
Agreed, but that's just as true of option 1. Each option is as correct
as the other. It's just a question of whether we need the combination:
-mips1 -mllsc -mfix-r10000
to be accepted, or whether we can treat it as a compile-time error.
If you do go for option 2, you then have to decide whether to insert
28 nops after every LL/SC loop, or whether you try to do some analysis
to avoid unnecessary nops. The natural place for this analysis would
>> You need to modify the asm templates whatever you do.
> This is what has me a little perplexed. The asm templates are #define
> macros, and it's kind of dawned on me that my attempts made so far to
> correct the errata has me using preprocessor macros that are going to
> get translated into something else when gcc itself is compiled, rather
> than gcc changing what it outputs based on the flags we send it.
> So I'm assuming that, poking around in the sync.md file some, the better
> approach might be to pass an extra argument to these atomic macros as they're
> evaluated in sync.md. This extra argument being the resultant branch likely
> - If -mfix-r10000 isn't needed or -mbranch-likely isn't called,
> "beq" gets passed in.
> - If -mfix-r10000 is called, and ISA_HAS_BRANCHLIKELY is false,
> pass in 28 nops plus "beq" (is there some kind of macro that can
> expand a single nop 28 times?).
> - If -mfix-r10000 is called and ISA_HAS_BRANCHLIKELY is true
> and -mno-branch-likely was not called, then pass in the beqzl
> I think that's all the relevant combinations. It's also probably a
> good idea too to determine the value to pass as the extra argument
> before the atomic macro is called.
If you go for option 1, you could replace things like:
and make the .md insn do:
mips_branch_likely = TARGET_FIX_R10000;
But something nattier is needed for MIPS_SYNC_NEW_OP and MIPS_SYNC_NEW_NAND,
where the branch delay slot is not a nop. In this case, we need to replace
"\t" INSN "\t%0,%0,%2\n" \
"\t" INSN "\t%0,%0,%2\n" \
(INSN does not need to be executed when the branch is taken.)
I suppose adding a macro parameter would work, but it would lead
to combinatorial explosion. I think we need to replace these
MIPS_SYNC_* macros with a function that uses output_asm_insn
to emit the loop insn-by-insn. (This might make it possible
to factor things more than they're factored now.)
>> Yes, provided that you never override an explicit -mfix-r10000 or
> I copied the same code for R4000 and R4400 for this:
> /* Default to working around R10000 errata only if the processor
> was selected explicitly. */
> if ((target_flags_explicit & MASK_FIX_R10000) == 0
> && mips_matching_cpu_name_p (mips_arch_info->name, "r10000"))
> target_flags |= MASK_FIX_R10000;
> I assume that won't fire on r12000/r14000/r16000, right?
>> Actually, I meant: I was wondering about the fact that there seems
>> to be no online copy of the errata sheet that describes this problem.
>> I've only ever seen a description of the workaround. I've never seen
>> a verbatim copy of the errata itself.
> I tried seeing whether archive.org had anything old off of the
> mips.com site, but nothing close to the old directory structure seems
> to exist. If I new what the PDF file name was, it might be possible
> to track something down on Google pertaining to the last publicly
> released revision. Bit surprised, too, on why NEC doesn't have
> anything on necel.com. They produced the actual silicon and had a
> hand in designing it, if I'm not mistaken. I'd think they would at
> least have a copy if no one else.
Yeah. Maybe they just want to erase bad memories ;)