On Thu, 4 Dec 2014, David Daney wrote:
> > GAS will happily schedule any instruction into a branch delay slot as
> > long as the instruction is not architecturally forbidden there (e.g.
> > ERET), there is no data dependency with the branch that would affect the
> > result produced and the instr
On 12/04/2014 03:49 AM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2014, David Daney wrote:
but it doesn't support customized instructions,
GCC will never put these in the delay slot of a FPU branch, so it is not
needed.
multiple ASEs,
Same as above. But any instructions that are deemed nece
On Wed, 3 Dec 2014, David Daney wrote:
> > but it doesn't support customized instructions,
>
> GCC will never put these in the delay slot of a FPU branch, so it is not
> needed.
>
> > multiple ASEs,
>
> Same as above. But any instructions that are deemed necessary can easily be
> added.
GAS
By all means I don't really understand the whole issues surrounding this
but this approach looks better to me as well. It seems more generic and
future proof and at least I can understand the patch series.
But did I say I don't understand all of this? Would be nice to hear from
more people :)
Nice work David, I like this approach. It's so much simpler than hacking
atop the current dsemul code. I also imagine this could be reused for
emulation of instructions removed in r6, when running pre-r6 userland
binaries on r6 systems.
On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 06:21:36PM -0800, David Daney wrote:
On 12/03/2014 05:56 PM, Leonid Yegoshin wrote:
David,
I feel we can close a discission at that point - we disagree which
approach is better, and there is no sense to continue dancing around.
That is something I do agree with.
I see only two technical issues here which differs:
1. You beli
On 12/03/2014 04:52 PM, Leonid Yegoshin wrote:
On 12/03/2014 04:20 PM, David Daney wrote:
On 12/03/2014 03:55 PM, Leonid Yegoshin wrote:
On 12/03/2014 03:44 PM, David Daney wrote:
(...)
Big work
Not really, although by number of lines of code, it is about 3x the
size of your patch, it only
On 12/03/2014 03:55 PM, Leonid Yegoshin wrote:
On 12/03/2014 03:44 PM, David Daney wrote:
(...)
Big work
Not really, although by number of lines of code, it is about 3x the size
of your patch, it only touches the existing code in one place. It only
took about 3 days to write, adding full M
On 12/03/2014 04:20 PM, David Daney wrote:
On 12/03/2014 03:55 PM, Leonid Yegoshin wrote:
On 12/03/2014 03:44 PM, David Daney wrote:
(...)
Big work
Not really, although by number of lines of code, it is about 3x the
size of your patch, it only touches the existing code in one place.
It on
On 12/03/2014 03:44 PM, David Daney wrote:
(...)
Big work but it doesn't support customized instructions, multiple ASEs,
MIPS R6 etc.
Well, it is still not a replacement of XOL emulation.
Even close.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a
10 matches
Mail list logo
