ColdFire was Re: [buildd] Etch?

On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 12:24:21PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote: > > While it's possible to avoid these instructions, it would mean > > possibly very larger code and thus even slower code. > [snip] > I agree that the loss of addressing modes and of opc

Re: [buildd] Etch?

Hi, On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > But I guess this is a problem if you do > > > > movem.l d0-d1,-(a7) > > fmovem fp0-fp1,-(a7) > > movem.l d2-d3,-(a7) > > > > and want to access the saved d0 and d1 later, relative to a7, as they > > will be at different offsets. >

Re: [buildd] Etch?

On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 05:41:29PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote: > On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > Other than that, there are a number of opcodes that have been removed > > (those relating to the BCD data format, for instance, and some others), > > and most of those that remain have los

Re: [buildd] Etch?

On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 02:37:03PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > * Using address register indirect with predecrement or postincrement mode > > > on the stack pointer (A7) in byte context will incr

Re: [buildd] Etch?

On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 02:37:03PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > Indeed. However, I do not feel that the impact will be unbearably large. > > So far, I have found only two cases where the documentation documents > > different behaviour for a given

Re: [buildd] Etch?

Hi, On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > Other than that, there are a number of opcodes that have been removed > (those relating to the BCD data format, for instance, and some others), > and most of those that remain have lost a number of addressing modes as > well, which I guess you alre

Re: [buildd] Etch?

Geert Uytterhoeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Wouter Verhelst wrote: >> Indeed. However, I do not feel that the impact will be unbearably large. >> So far, I have found only two cases where the documentation documents >> different behaviour for a given opcode on ColdFire vs

Re: [buildd] Etch?

Stephen R Marenka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 02:03:53PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > >> > Might something be done within the debian infrastructure to assist those >> > architectures that are excluded from the etch release, such that they >> > could make a late relea

Re: [buildd] Etch?

On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 09:14:51AM -0500, Anthony Stuckey wrote: > >If the toolchain bugs are found and it comes down to CPU time then I > >can still offer 2 68060, one with 128MB ram, the other with 48MB to > >build packages. On the bigger one I could also give away accounts if > >you need anothe

Re: [buildd] Etch?

-Original Message- >From: Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Aug 4, 2006 8:29 AM >To: Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Cc: debian-68k@lists.debian.org >Subject: Re: [buildd] Etch? > > >If the toolchain bugs are found and it comes down to CPU time then I >can still offer 2

Re: [buildd] Etch?

Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi all, > > I don't know what everyone else thinks about it here, but it would > appear to me that making it in time for Etch is not going to happen > anymore now. > * Too many compiler bugs > * As a result, too many uncompiled packages since *ages*. W

Re: [buildd] Etch?

On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 02:03:53PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > Might something be done within the debian infrastructure to assist those > > architectures that are excluded from the etch release, such that they > > could make a late release, without disturbing the current stable user base

Re: [buildd] Etch?

On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > Indeed. However, I do not feel that the impact will be unbearably large. > So far, I have found only two cases where the documentation documents > different behaviour for a given opcode on ColdFire vs 68k: > > * Moving data from FPU registers to memory

Re: [buildd] Etch?

On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 02:54:08AM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote: > I'm afraid not, but at least we'll soon have a working libgc. > The thread suspend handler doesn't save all registers, so some pointers are > lost. I attached an initial patch to fix it. Cool. Further proof that I know not what I'm

Re: [buildd] Etch?

On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 08:09:42PM +1000, Finn Thain wrote: > On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 06:59:44PM +1000, Finn Thain wrote: > > > [snip] As I said earlier in the thread I don't see much difference > > > between releasing and not releasing... > > > > Th

Re: [buildd] Etch?

On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 12:24:21PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote: > While it's possible to avoid these instructions, it would mean possibly > very larger code and thus even slower code. Indeed. However, I do not feel that the impact will be unbearably large. So far, I have found only two cases where

Re: [buildd] Etch?

Hi, On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > I don't think that will be much of an issue. There are a few cases in > which CF is different from classic 68k (try comparing the address > register indirect with postincrement or predecrement addressing modes on > CF and classic 68k for A7, if you

Re: [buildd] Etch?

On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 06:59:44PM +1000, Finn Thain wrote: > > [snip] As I said earlier in the thread I don't see much difference > > between releasing and not releasing... > > The main difference is that we want to accomodate for people who do wan

Re: [buildd] Etch?

On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 06:59:44PM +1000, Finn Thain wrote: > > > On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Finn Thain wrote: > > > On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > > > > > > Since most of the problems are caused by compiler issues, what > > > >

Re: [buildd] Etch?

On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Finn Thain wrote: > > On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Finn Thain wrote: > > > > On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Since most of the problems are caused by

Re: [buildd] Etch?

On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Finn Thain wrote: > On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Finn Thain wrote: > > > On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > > > > > > Since most of the problems are caused by compiler issues, what > > > > guarantees that a > > > > rel

Re: [buildd] Etch?

On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Finn Thain wrote: > > On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > > > > Since most of the problems are caused by compiler issues, what > > > guarantees that a > > > release-without-packages-that-caused-obvious-problem

Re: [buildd] Etch?

On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Finn Thain wrote: > On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Finn Thain wrote: > > > On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 08:41:32AM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote: > > > > > Depends on your point of view. From m

Re: [buildd] Etch?

On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 08:57:55AM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote: > On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 01:30:16AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > Well, okay. For clarity, that's not what I'm doing. I think that it's > > too late for etch (although I won't stop trying), but I do think that we > > will be

Re: [buildd] Etch?

On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Finn Thain wrote: > > On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 08:41:32AM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote: > > > > Depends on your point of view. From my POV I can easily miss those > > > > packag

Re: [buildd] Etch?

On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Finn Thain wrote: > On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 08:41:32AM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote: > > > Depends on your point of view. From my POV I can easily miss those > > > packages on m68k, because I don't use them. Other people won't be

Re: [buildd] Etch?

On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 08:41:32AM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote: > > Depends on your point of view. From my POV I can easily miss those > > packages on m68k, because I don't use them. Other people won't be able > > to live without those ones. It's

Re: [buildd] Etch?

On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 08:41:32AM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote: > Depends on your point of view. > From my POV I can easily miss those packages on m68k, because I don't use > them. Other people won't be able to live without those ones. It's a matter > of what goals do you want to achieve: relea