This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
RE: [MIPS] avoiding certain instruction in delay slots
- From: "Moore, Catherine" <Catherine_Moore at mentor dot com>
- To: Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>, Sven Anderson <sven at anderson dot de>
- Cc: "binutils at sourceware dot org" <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 15:35:52 +0000
- Subject: RE: [MIPS] avoiding certain instruction in delay slots
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <52EF785C dot 7010509 at anderson dot de> <87fvo0dz1g dot fsf at sandifor-thinkpad dot stglab dot manchester dot uk dot ibm dot com> <52EFBD4D dot 1040505 at anderson dot de> <878utsdtjw dot fsf at sandifor-thinkpad dot stglab dot manchester dot uk dot ibm dot com> <ABF8ACAA-454E-45E2-8093-7AEF22525743 at anderson dot de> <87a9e7drlw dot fsf at sandifor-thinkpad dot stglab dot manchester dot uk dot ibm dot com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: binutils-owner@sourceware.org [mailto:binutils-owner@sourceware.org] On Behalf Of Richard Sandiford
> Subject: Re: [MIPS] avoiding certain instruction in delay slots
>
> >
> > Sven Anderson <sven@anderson.de> writes:
> > On 03.02.2014 15:57, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >
> > Well, these patches barely have enough originality to be covered by
> > copyright, but anyway I would rewrite them on my own. The question is
> > more, if this errata workaround is of general interest, since it
> > doesn't seem to be public and I have no idea which other SoC might
> > have the same bug. Is it usual that errata are confidential? If yes,
> > how are they usually handled by gcc/gas?
>
> Well, it's getting on for 10 years since I handled an errata directly :-) (except
> for the well-known R10000 speculation problems, which are public).
> The ones I did back then weren't confidential as far as I know, since the
> customer actively wanted us to add the -mfix- flags and were prepared for a
> summary of the errata to be mentioned in the comments and
> documentation.
>
> CodeSourcery were the ones who implemented the -mfix-24k option.
> I don't know whether this errata was deliberately excluded or whether it
> wasn't known at the time.
>
It wasn't known at the time.