Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 23 November 2012 15:31, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> > x86 instruction sets haven't followed a linear progression of features
> > for quite a while, especially including non-Intel chips, so it stopped
> > making sense for GCC to indicate the instruction set in that way.
>
> If
Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 23 November 2012 15:17, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On 23 November 2012 15:15, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> You should at least test __i686__ too:
> >>
> >> $ gcc -m32 -dM -E -x c /dev/null |grep __i
> >> #define __i686 1
> >> #define __i686__ 1
> >> #define __i386 1
> >> #def
On 23 November 2012 15:31, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> x86 instruction sets haven't followed a linear progression of features
> for quite a while, especially including non-Intel chips, so it stopped
> making sense for GCC to indicate the instruction set in that way.
If you're going to go down that rout
On 23 November 2012 15:17, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 23 November 2012 15:15, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> You should at least test __i686__ too:
>>
>> $ gcc -m32 -dM -E -x c /dev/null |grep __i
>> #define __i686 1
>> #define __i686__ 1
>> #define __i386 1
>> #define __i386__ 1
>
> Yuck. I had assumed
Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 23 November 2012 15:15, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > Il 23/11/2012 16:12, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
> >> Adjust the conditional which guards the implementation of
> >>
> >> -#elif defined(__i386__)
> >> +#elif defined(__i586__)
> >>
> >> static inline int64_t cpu_get_real_ti
On 23 November 2012 15:15, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 23/11/2012 16:12, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
>> Adjust the conditional which guards the implementation of
>>
>> -#elif defined(__i386__)
>> +#elif defined(__i586__)
>>
>> static inline int64_t cpu_get_real_ticks(void)
>> {
>>
>
> You should at
Il 23/11/2012 16:12, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
> Adjust the conditional which guards the implementation of
> cpu_get_real_ticks() via RDTSC, so that we don't try to use it
> on x86 CPUs which don't implement RDTSC. Instead we will fall
> back to the no-cycle-counter-available default implementatio
Adjust the conditional which guards the implementation of
cpu_get_real_ticks() via RDTSC, so that we don't try to use it
on x86 CPUs which don't implement RDTSC. Instead we will fall
back to the no-cycle-counter-available default implementation.
Reported-by: Yurij Popov
Signed-off-by: Peter Mayd
