On 2012-12-06 04:11, Andreas Färber wrote: >> The "2*" names are aliases of the "ev*" names. There's no need for so >> much duplication. And for that matter, "ev68" is no different from "ev67" >> at the level for which we emulate. In hw, it was more cache and a faster >> multiply implementation. > > Clearly I know little to nothing about Alpha CPU models. :) > Regarding ev68, we'll need to carry it for backwards compatibility; can > we assume that the Alpha ISA is dead? Then I could drop this shrinking > array and make, e.g., ev68 a trivial subclass of ev67.
Yes, the ISA is dead. We're also nearing the end of "extended" hardware support for Alpha systems from HP. > The name scheme we are heading towards now looks like <name>-alpha-cpu. > Did I understand you correctly that we would want, e.g., ev4-alpha-cpu > as type and have "21064" map to it? Correct. That corresponds more closely to how the compiler tools are configured (e.g. alphaev67-linux, not alpha21164-linux). r~
