Hi, On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, Finn Thain wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Christian T. Steigies wrote: > > > > Getting the coldfire port working would be nice, yes... I believe that > > > would bring in fresh blood and a general boost for debian-68k/cf... > > > > We had a discussion with Aurelien, Geert and Sven about coldfire. The > > consensus was that we should not make cf a separate port, since we would > > probably loose all m68k developers in that case. I personally am > > interested in cf only if it can help m68k, > > That is my interest too. But surely that argues against your first > statement about losing developers? As much as I understand to keep as much as possible common, I don't have much hope if I look at it from the technical perspective. IMO a common port would have too much restrictions and neither could use any of the advantages either architecture has to offer. > What concerns me is that both 680x0 and CF code would be compromised if > one port were to try to support both. > > I don't know if anyone can confirm this example, but it looks like no-one > gets to use div without adding compatibility code, > > http://acp.atari.org/articles/mcf5407eval/mcf5407eval.html#Modifications%20of%20the%20MiNT%20kernel CF doesn't have the divul.l instruction, it has a remu.l instruction, which unfortuately has the same opcode as divul.l (so the some machine instruction will return quotient/remainder on m68k, but only the remainder on CF). The trick used there produces a signed and an unsigned divide, so that gcc won't merge both operations into a single instruction. bye, Roman -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
