This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH v2] Work around the NOP issue of Loongson2F
On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 21:37 +0000, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>
> > > Per Richard's suggestion (which I second) please name the option
> > > -mfix-loongson2f and adjust all the corresponding variables, etc.
> > > accordingly.
> >
> > Wu Zhangjin was right; I was actually suggesting -mfix-loongson2f-nop.
> > I've no problem subdividing -mfix-* options based on specific errata
> > like this, especially given that new versions of the processor are
> > free from it.
>
> Ah, I misunderstood, sorry.
>
> I'd be a little bit worried about proliferating options to handle
> processor errata and actually I take the fact that current steppings have
> been fixed as an argument against it (because you need no -mfix-* option
> for these to run code correctly). In particular -- if we get more such
> specific options, will one have to specify all of them explicitly to
> gurantee predictable behaviour of all the members of the CPU family, or
> will there be a global -mfix-loongson2f setting to cover all of of the
> errata? The former will not scale -- you'll have to tweak Makefiles, etc.
> whenever a new erratum is discovered. The latter has a problem with
> negatives that'll require complex handling. I'm using loongson2f as an
> example here of course -- that's a general concern of any such option.
>
> I'm not going to defend my stand fiercely though -- I just wanted to make
> sure such concerns were taken into account -- and you are the maintainer
> to decide, after all.
Hi, Richard and Maciej
Thanks very much for clearing the option problem.
Perhaps It's really better to remove that -nop suffix, 'Cause a new
errata will come later, but that work around is a little complex to
upstream, So, AMS let me push this one at first.
So, I will remove that -nop suffix later.
Thanks & Regards,
Wu Zhangjin