This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Fw: [PATCH 1/2] BZ#13743: PowerPC - Add a new header for platformspecific functions
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at systemhalted dot org>
- To: munroesj at us dot ibm dot com
- Cc: David Edelsohn <dje dot gcc at gmail dot com>, Michael Meissner <meissner at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, Michael R Meissner <mrmeissn at us dot ibm dot com>, Ulrich Drepper <drepper at gmail dot com>, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>, ryan dot arnold at gmail dot com, Thomas Schwinge <thomas at codesourcery dot com>, Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho <tuliom at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 18:34:06 -0500
- Subject: Re: Fw: [PATCH 1/2] BZ#13743: PowerPC - Add a new header for platformspecific functions
- References: <OF25143771.5D6AAC35-ON852579BB.006EE26B-852579BB.006EE6D2@us.ibm.com><20120308202224.GA12510@ibm-tiger.the-meissners.org><1331247636.4861.177.camel@spokane1.rchland.ibm.com><CAGWvnyn0YRKz-HFD_Yxkr2eDDgxGFc4Vq+31RDJBC+OhMDuRkw@mail.gmail.com><1331333211.4861.194.camel@spokane1.rchland.ibm.com>
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Steven Munroe
<munroesj@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> Ok, as I understand that GCC could be a home for intrinsics for
> computation and synchronization but not a catch-all. This is very close
> to my assumption above. But you may being disagreeing with Michael on
> the timebase?
>
> I would assume that things like timebase, and program priority register
> are more strongly associated with multi-core and threading APIs (ie
> GLIBC)
>
> How do you feel about the data stream control register and getting a
> more complete set (than __sync_synchronize()) of memory barriers? *GCC
> or GLIBC)?
Given the rationale I've written up here, I'd say "GCC."
http://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/PlatformHeaders
It sounds like the GCC *and* GLIBC concensus is that the
current function would most benefit your users as a GCC
builtin.
Would it be wrong of me to suggest the following course
of action?
Start with:
* Rework the patch to add a sys/platform/ppc.h header.
* Document this in the glibc manual as the place for
platform macros, and document the current Power macros.
In parallel:
* Work to migrate any macros from sys/platform/ppc.h into
GCC as built-ins (where appropriate) keeping the same
name for convenience.
* Document the built-ins in the GCC manual.
At any given point in the time the user must always include
sys/platform/ppc.h, but they must check the documentation
to see which function is a builtin and which is provided
as macro.
Cheers,
Carlos.