> > a) apply the workaround to all m68k ports:
> > pros: same m68k binaries can be shared
> > cons: requires extra performance penalty for all m68k (020/030/040/060)
> >
> > b) apply the workaround only for XC68LC040 users:
> > pros: nothing? (only technical interests of developers?)
> > cons:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2025 08:28:04 Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
> > Would you or isaki@ or martin@ like me to assign PR 13078 to either of
> > you and I'll write a followup email to the binutils people stating that
> > from now on you'll handle all responsibilty for the correspondance with
> > them and assign ei
> Would you or isaki@ or martin@ like me to assign PR 13078 to either of you
> and
> I'll write a followup email to the binutils people stating that from now on
> you'll handle all responsibilty for the correspondance with them and assign
> either of you to the doc/HACKS note.
Actually I had n
On Fri, 11 Apr 2025 02:07:06 Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
> When committing code, it's important to provide a obvious explanation
> of the technical rationale behind the implementation.
>
> Without such rationale, the code can become difficult to maintain
> in the future, as later contributors may not und
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 17:58:26 Tetsuya Isaki wrote:
> At Sat, 5 Apr 2025 22:47:39 +1100,
>
> Nat Sloss wrote:
> > Before I placed the additional nops before rte I experienced 1 hard
> > lockup which I attributed to the fpu (buggy lc)
>
> > The idea was this:
> It can't be certain that the behavior i
> I did it to be on the safe side. If the kernel was to be built with -mlcfix
> passed to gas(1) the nop would be inserted.
It seems there might be some confusion between the goal
(i.e. avoiding f-line exception during write-pending) and
the approach/workaround (inserting a nop before F-line ins
On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 00:44:02 Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
> > Module Name:src
> > Committed By: nat
> > Date: Wed Apr 9 00:04:41 UTC 2025
> >
> > Modified Files:
> > src/sys/arch/m68k/m68k: fpu.c
> >
> > Log Message:
> > Add workaround for fpu test for kernels defined wit
> Module Name: src
> Committed By: nat
> Date: Wed Apr 9 00:04:41 UTC 2025
>
> Modified Files:
> src/sys/arch/m68k/m68k: fpu.c
>
> Log Message:
> Add workaround for fpu test for kernels defined with M68040.
>
> This is to accomodate kernels built without the -mlcfix option passed
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 15:10:24 Martin Husemann wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 10:45:23AM +1000, Nat Sloss wrote:
> > nop - f* instructions are not atomicwhat will happen if nop is
> > executed and then the processor is interrupted (by say pressing a
> > keystroke on the keyboard) then after tha
On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 10:45:23AM +1000, Nat Sloss wrote:
> nop - f* instructions are not atomicwhat will happen if nop is executed
> and then the processor is interrupted (by say pressing a keystroke on the
> keyboard) then after that interrupt has run the f* instruction is executed.
>
>
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 17:44:09 Tetsuya Isaki wrote:
> At Sat, 5 Apr 2025 22:01:37 +1100,
>
> Nat Sloss wrote:
> > Following advice and following the spirit of my intentions adding nop in
> > the switch i added nops before "rte" in locore.s in sys/mac68k as
> > opposed to m68k/swicher.
>
> Are you su
At Sat, 5 Apr 2025 22:47:39 +1100,
Nat Sloss wrote:
> Before I placed the additional nops before rte I experienced 1 hard lockup
> which I attributed to the fpu (buggy lc)
>
> The idea was this:
It can't be certain that the behavior is related to this bug.
XC68LC040 series are known for having m
At Sat, 5 Apr 2025 22:01:37 +1100,
Nat Sloss wrote:
> Following advice and following the spirit of my intentions adding nop in the
> switch i added nops before "rte" in locore.s in sys/mac68k as opposed to
> m68k/swicher.
Are you sure?
First, errata E4 said the workaround is "nop-before-f-line"
On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 23:27:49 Martin Husemann wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 04, 2025 at 10:48:17PM +1100, Nat Sloss wrote:
> > The changes to the context switch in sys/m68k have been reverted and the
> > nop insertion by gas(1) has been turned off by default.
>
> What does upstream gcc plan to do with the ne
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 22:48:39 Tetsuya Isaki wrote:
> At Sun, 30 Mar 2025 04:44:26 +,
>
> Nathanial Sloss wrote:
> > Module Name:src
> > Committed By: nat
> > Date: Sun Mar 30 04:44:26 UTC 2025
> >
> > Modified Files:
> > src/sys/arch/m68k/m68k: switch_subr.s
> >
At Tue, 1 Apr 2025 02:26:35 +1100,
Nathanial Sloss wrote:
> Consider the following (including my gas patch for binutils):
>
> movq.
> nop
> fnop
>
> Thats as it's assembled but at run time it could posslibly
> run like this
>
> movq
> nop
> (switch task)
> fnop
>
> So the nops are inser
On Sat, Apr 05, 2025 at 10:47:39PM +1100, Nat Sloss wrote:
> nop
> fnop
>
> could be executed as
>
> nop
> (context swtich)
> (return from context swtich)
> fnop
>
> So without these the fnop would not be coverted.
Not sure what you mean here.
Why would the nop before the rte make any differen
On Sat, 5 Apr 2025 22:32:10 Martin Husemann wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 05, 2025 at 10:01:37PM +1100, Nat Sloss wrote:
> > Following advice and following the spirit of my intentions adding nop in
> > the switch i added nops before "rte" in locore.s in sys/mac68k as
> > opposed to m68k/swicher.
>
> This m
On Sat, Apr 05, 2025 at 10:01:37PM +1100, Nat Sloss wrote:
> Following advice and following the spirit of my intentions adding nop in the
> switch i added nops before "rte" in locore.s in sys/mac68k as opposed to
> m68k/swicher.
This makes no sense to me (but I can only guess how the exact bug w
Following advice and following the spirit of my intentions adding nop in the
switch i added nops before "rte" in locore.s in sys/mac68k as opposed to
m68k/swicher.
Along with adding nops before fline instructions with the modified assember.
I took a picture for your consideration.
http://ftp.n
On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 22:37:50 Tetsuya Isaki wrote:
> At Thu, 3 Apr 2025 14:00:16 +0200,
>
> Martin Husemann wrote:
> > > So these all nops are never executed just before any of f-line
> > > instructions.
> >
> > Can you also please explain how you got at that NOP-after-f-line
> > woraround? The Mot
At Thu, 3 Apr 2025 14:00:16 +0200,
Martin Husemann wrote:
> > So these all nops are never executed just before any of f-line
> > instructions.
>
> Can you also please explain how you got at that NOP-after-f-line woraround?
> The Motorola errata text (at least the versions I found on the wayback
>
On Fri, Apr 04, 2025 at 10:48:17PM +1100, Nat Sloss wrote:
> The changes to the context switch in sys/m68k have been reverted and the nop
> insertion by gas(1) has been turned off by default.
What does upstream gcc plan to do with the new option? Default on or off?
I guess we can find some way t
On Thu, Apr 03, 2025 at 08:55:11PM +0900, Tetsuya Isaki wrote:
> So these all nops are never executed just before any of f-line
> instructions.
Can you also please explain how you got at that NOP-after-f-line woraround?
The Motorola errata text (at least the versions I found on the wayback
machine
At Sun, 30 Mar 2025 04:44:26 +,
Nathanial Sloss wrote:
> Module Name: src
> Committed By: nat
> Date: Sun Mar 30 04:44:26 UTC 2025
>
> Modified Files:
> src/sys/arch/m68k/m68k: switch_subr.s
>
> Log Message:
> Sprinkle nop.
>
> This is the kernel part of addressing the issue w
At Tue, 26 Jul 2022 09:52:40 -0700,
Chuck Silvers wrote:
> > This commit breaks usr.sbin/crash on m68k.
> > curlwp is defined only in _KERNEL. usr.sbin/crash defines _KMEMUSER
> > but not _KERNEL.
> >
> > Would you look into?
>
> I fixed it now, sorry about that.
Thank you!
---
Tetsuya Isaki
On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 05:25:01PM +0900, Tetsuya Isaki wrote:
> At Mon, 25 Jul 2022 01:59:26 +,
> Chuck Silvers wrote:
> > Module Name:src
> > Committed By: chs
> > Date: Mon Jul 25 01:59:26 UTC 2022
> >
> > Modified Files:
> > src/sys/arch/m68k/m68k: db_trace.
At Mon, 25 Jul 2022 01:59:26 +,
Chuck Silvers wrote:
> Module Name: src
> Committed By: chs
> Date: Mon Jul 25 01:59:26 UTC 2022
>
> Modified Files:
> src/sys/arch/m68k/m68k: db_trace.c
>
> Log Message:
> use the pcb of the thread we are tracing rather than always curlwp.
>
>
28 matches
Mail list logo
