On Sunday 25 October 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> I'd like to see the arm9tdmi prefix to vector_catch removed
> or at least trimmed down to arm9.
As I noted. Patch on the way.
> We have not established
> whether arm7 cores can support any type of vector catching.
> BDI2000 w/arm7 could, but I
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 8:57 PM, David Brownell wrote:
> On Saturday 24 October 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
>> But should vector_catch be arm9 specific even so? Doesn't
>> xscale + arm11 support somesuch?
>
> There are multiple vector_catch commands; just look
> at the concept index in the User's G
On Saturday 24 October 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> But should vector_catch be arm9 specific even so? Doesn't
> xscale + arm11 support somesuch?
There are multiple vector_catch commands; just look
at the concept index in the User's Guide.
> I think the polymorphism at the C rather than command l
On Saturday 24 October 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> Seems like you are not too excited about register
> caching either
>
> Before deleting all register caching we have to consider
> the performance impact. Perhaps we could remove
> register caching from the user's point of view, but
> keep it
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 7:13 PM, David Brownell wrote:
> On Saturday 24 October 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 10:37 PM, David Brownell wrote:
>> > On Friday 23 October 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
>> >> Here is a thought:
>> >>
>> >> Retire arm9 vector_catch C code and write
On Saturday 24 October 2009, Michael Schwingen wrote:
> If you want to spell out the vector names, the command arguments get
> target-specific - not sure if this is good.
Which means the command itself is target-specific...
at which point, common syntax is IMO ungood/misleading.
___
On Saturday 24 October 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 10:37 PM, David Brownell wrote:
> > On Friday 23 October 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> >> Here is a thought:
> >>
> >> Retire arm9 vector_catch C code and write a Tcl
> >> proc instead on top of "reg vector_catch".
> >>
> >
Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> Is it unreasonable to have a common vector_catch syntax
> across e.g. Cortex, MIPS and ARMx for e.g. data abort?
Not sure. However, I think it might be difficult to have a common syntax
that can handle *all* kinds of catchable events on all targets,
including non-ARM.
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 10:37 PM, David Brownell wrote:
> On Friday 23 October 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
>> Here is a thought:
>>
>> Retire arm9 vector_catch C code and write a Tcl
>> proc instead on top of "reg vector_catch".
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> Erm ... why?
>
> Rename "arm9tdmi" to "arm9", sure
On Friday 23 October 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> Here is a thought:
>
> Retire arm9 vector_catch C code and write a Tcl
> proc instead on top of "reg vector_catch".
>
> Thoughts?
Erm ... why?
Rename "arm9tdmi" to "arm9", sure.
Bugfix the current code to preserve the user's
setting for that re
Here is a thought:
Retire arm9 vector_catch C code and write a Tcl
proc instead on top of "reg vector_catch".
Thoughts?
Why should targets other than arm9tdmi resort to
using "reg vector_catch" directly?
Doesn't targets like arm926ejs have vector_catch registers?
--
Øyvind Harboe
http://www.z
11 matches
Mail list logo
