On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 10:16:40PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote: > On Tue, Dec 22 2009, Paul Mundt wrote: > > SH-4A supports synco, SH-4 does not. SH-4A is based on the SH-4, but has > > a lot of new instructions and so forth. Folks like to treat them the same > > so as to keep the same ABI, but there are a lot of architectural > > differences that are ideally not just glossed over. We have been bitten > > by these in the past. > > > > Linux reports different uname values for all of SH-4, SH-4A, and > > SH4AL-DSP largely for these reasons, and gcc also has different > > preprocessor tokens for each. In this case, an __SH4A__ test can be done > > for synco with the above definitions sufficing for all other variants. > > > > Where this silliness started was with FPU-less variants of SH-4 defining > > __SH3__ because the gcc folks decided that an SH-4 without FPU > > instructions was "close enough" to the SH-3 ISA, which while generally > > true at the time, also ignored the fact that they have completely > > different caches -- SH-4/SH-4A/SH4AL-DSP parts end up having to do > > I-cache block invalidations from the libc, while SH-3 does not. SH-4 and > > SH-4A preprocessor tokens on the other hand are sensibly abstracted, so > > there is no reason to pretend like everything is SH-4. > > Thanks for the clarification, Paul. One last question... Will __SH4A__ > cover sh5 as well, or does it need a __SH5__? > That will need an __SH5__. SH-4A got things like synco from the SH-5 ISA, so in most of these cases a test for __SH4A__ or __SH5__ will do. This is how the kernel does it today at least (although only the instruction mnemonic is preserved, the actual encoding and instruction size are completely different).
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
