On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Sriraman Tallam <tmsri...@google.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 6:02 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Sriraman Tallam <tmsri...@google.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Thanks for all the comments. I am attaching a new patch
>>> incorporating all of the changes mentioned, mainly :
>>>
>>> 1) Make __cpu_indicator_init a constructor in libgcc and guard to call
>>> it only once.
>>
>> This is unreliable and you don't need 3 symbols from libgcc. You can use
>
> Do you mean it is unreliable because of the constructor ordering problem?
>
You do not have total control when __cpu_indicator_init is called.
Also you shouldn't use bitfield in
struct __processor_model
+{
+ unsigned int __cpu_is_amd : 1;
+ unsigned int __cpu_is_intel : 1;
+ unsigned int __cpu_is_intel_atom : 1;
+ unsigned int __cpu_is_intel_core2 : 1;
+ unsigned int __cpu_is_intel_corei7_nehalem : 1;
+ unsigned int __cpu_is_intel_corei7_westmere : 1;
+ unsigned int __cpu_is_intel_corei7_sandybridge : 1;
+ unsigned int __cpu_is_amdfam10_barcelona : 1;
+ unsigned int __cpu_is_amdfam10_shanghai : 1;
+ unsigned int __cpu_is_amdfam10_istanbul : 1;
+} __cpu_model = {0};
+
A processor can't be both Atom and Core 2.
--
H.J.
