On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > 2008-11-22 Joshua Kinard <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > * ports/sysdeps/mips/bits/atomic.h
> > (R10K_BEQZ_INSN, R10K_NOPS_INSN): Define depending on ISA.
> > (__arch_compare_and_exchange_xxx_32_int): Replace 'beqz' insn with
> > R10K_BEQZ_INSN and add R10K_NOPS_INSN.
> > (__arch_compare_and_exchange_xxx_64_int): Likewise
> > (__arch_exchange_xxx_32_int): Likewise
> > (__arch_exchange_xxx_64_int): Likewise
> > (__arch_exchange_and_add_32_int): Likewise
> > (__arch_exchange_and_add_64_int): Likewise
> Thinking about this...
> MIPS I: 28 NOPs is really horrid. Not so much on this processor if
> the code is all in cache, but I guess that older/simpler processors
> are going to sit for a number of cycles chewing through those NOPs.
> Are distributions still building MIPS I code? Can we assume that
> people who want to run glibc on an R10K can at least get something
> for MIPS II?
I agree this is horrible. I would rather not have a workaround for a
broken chip in the official sources at all than badly hit good chips
(comprising the vast majority). Unless this can be made a compile-time
option, so that whoever is interested in it can use "-march=mips1
-mfix-r10000" or suchlike to get it activated, I am against the change.
> MIPS II, MIPS III, MIPS IV: Using beqzl does not seem particularly
> horrid - although it's still a shame since this branch is in fact
> anti-likely. It will almost never be taken.
Again if only "-march=mips2 -mfix-r10000" etc. activates it, then I am
fine with that, otherwise it is a no-no for me.
> Other platforms: !(MIPS II or MIPS III or MIPS IV) is not the same as
> (MIPS I)! Please don't activate this workaround on builds that won't
> run on an R10K, like MIPS32.
Nothing to add here. ;)