Hi Richard,
I discussed with the original author, have looked into the ARM cache matters
in greater detail and certainly agree with your general concerns.
There are pieces related to the insn cache clearing in the code, but I can
see how architecture specific everything is here, indeed not approp
Hi Richard,
> I'm not going to object to this patch - it's ok at a GCC level; but I'm
> not sure that architecturally this is going to work. The implementation
> of cache clearing is very specific to the implementation and I don't
> think it is possible to write a portable single implementation.
On 01/08/17 15:31, Olivier Hainque wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On top of previous changes reworking the arm-vxworks support
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-08/msg00085.html
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-08/msg00075.html
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-08/msg00078.h
> On Aug 1, 2017, at 16:31 , Olivier Hainque wrote:
>
> This patch adds a variant implementation of _clear_cache
> for arm-vxworks*, needed for proper functioning of trampolines
> on targets with separate instruction/data caches.
Forgot to mention:
Tested by verifying success of an in-house bu
