This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [rfa/mips] Second go at vr5500 hilo hazard fix

    As for having to tag each individual entry in the .igen file with an
    explicit CPU. Yes, that sux. However, I also believe that it has
    significantly reduced the overall error rate (no more breaking one
    target by editing another) and that benefit vastly outweighs the short
    term pain.

I still take issue with the latter ("short term pain"), for such
additions have to stay in for the life of support for the arch in the
simulator, which *should* be quite long term.

Look at it this way, if the igen mechanism is used, gcc is able to eliminate everything :-)

If there's another way of achieving the same effect, I'm interested.

But that was exactly what Andrew objected to:

And he and I (strongly, IMO) disagreed at that time.  (IIRC, I think I
mentioned at the time that the right solution to this is better
testing.  I still think that's true.)

Of course, in August of last year, (unprompted by me!) he decided to
stop being MIPS co-maintainer.  So, at this point, I'm the approval
authority, and I like my style of patch most.  8-)

I would like to see it augmented to include some test code (now that
there's a prelim test framework for mips, with what, 1 test? 8-), but
as long as you commit to actually doing that I'm OK with it waiting a
little bit.

Your call.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]