but the tense sounds wrong too.
> Maybe it would be better to have something like:
>
> ; Putting rdhwr in a delay slot would make the kernel's emulation
> ; of it much slower.
>
> right above the "can_delay" line. Whatever you feel is best though.
Thank you.
ot build and run the testsuite natively (in reasonable time) due to
limited CPU/memory resources on my target platform. Is there good way
to run testsuite on cross environment?
2006-07-24 Atsushi Nemoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
partial PR target/28126
* config/mips/mips.md
On 21 Jul 2006 10:06:34 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I also don't see why revision 108713 would affect this.
>
> But I do note that this version is still bad. The rdhwr instruction
> is in the branch delay slot, and is therefore always executed.
Yes, and I think rdhwr sho
$2,$2,$3
lw $2,0($2)
j $31
nop
$L7:
j $31
move $2,$0
And I can not see why the commit make such a difference...
---
Atsushi Nemoto
eax
movl%edx, %ecx
jns .L5
movl%edx, (%esi)
popl%ebx
popl%esi
popl%ebp
ret
---
Atsushi Nemoto
On 20 Jun 2006 09:10:43 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Should I file a bug report?
>
> Yes, please. Thanks.
Done. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28126
---
Atsushi Nemoto
lw $2,0($2)
j $31
nop
JFYI.
Should I file a bug report?
---
Atsushi Nemoto
t;type" "unknown")
(set_attr "mode" "")])
With "unspec_volatile", gcc do not move the rdhwr before the branch.
But this change has bad side effects. For example, if I incremented a
thread local variable, rdhwr is used twice (for load and store).
So I suppose we should tell gcc that rdhwr is not cheap. But I do not
know how to describe such information in .md file...
---
Atsushi Nemoto
result of the syscall. This
add an additional exception for the syscall for usual case.
I do not know much about gcc's internal. Any help are welcome. Thank
you.
---
Atsushi Nemoto
