[Top] [All Lists]

Re: first packages for mipsel

To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <>
Subject: Re: first packages for mipsel
From: Florian Lohoff <>
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 17:29:00 +0200
Cc: "Kevin D. Kissell" <>,,
In-reply-to: <>; from on Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 12:55:24PM +0200
Organization: rfc822 - pure communication
References: <004f01c0bf41$fe823720$0deca8c0@Ulysses> <>
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.15i
On Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 12:55:24PM +0200, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
>  You are right, of course.  That's why glibc contains two versions of
> _test_and_set() code.  If compiled for MIPS I, glibc uses a syscall
> (currently sysmips()), while for MIPS II and higher it uses inline
> assembly code which makes use of LL/SC.
>  That's exactly the way glibc does CPU-model-specific code for other
> archs.

The problem is that it is compile time - I would like to have
a runtime version - Just export the existance of ll/sc to
userspace somewhow.

> > I've seen the hybrid proposal of having libc determine the LL/SC
> > capability of the processor and either executing the instructions
> > or doing the syscall as appropriate. While that would allow
> > near-optimal performance on all systems, I find it troublesome,
> > both on the principle that the OS should conceal hardware
> > implementation details from the user, and on the practical basis
> > that glibc is the last place I would want to put more CPU-specific
> > cruft.  But reasonable people can disagree.
>  I don't like run-time detection either.  The compile-time choice is
> sufficient enough.  The _test_and_set() library function already hides
> implementation details from the user.

It isnt sufficent as we need a glibc beeing able to run on old
decstations AND on newer machines like the Lasat machine
which has an R5000.

Florian Lohoff                     +49-5201-669912
     Why is it called "common sense" when nobody seems to have any?

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