This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC 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: [PATCH] MIPS32 DSP intrinsics

On Thursday 02 June 2005 23:51, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Similarly, having publicly available ISA manuals should not be a
> requirement.

This is really not my business, but I'm confused by your POV on this...

> Sometimes, for example, manuals are written as single 
> documents with ISA documentation mixed in with very proprietary stuff,
> and it's not reasonable to ask people to split them up.

Why is this not reasonable to ask of instruction sets implemented in a
free software compiler? Implementing the instructions in GCC effectively
makes them public, so why not make the documentation public at the same
time.  How else can port maintainers give patches to their port a proper
review if they can't even know what the patch is supposed to implement?!

It is IMVHO very reasonable to ask that documentation for instruction
sets implemented in GCC is made available.

>  Or, sometimes,
> people people are reverse-engineering ISAs.

They would probably be documenting their findings in this case.

> In either case, it's great to encourage these things, but we know that
> users will want the compiler support, even if these things aren't
> necessarily available.

What are users going to do with instructions that they can't use on any
simulator or silicon?  Nothing.


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