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: Modifying ARM code generator for elimination of 8bit writes - need help

On Sun, 2006-06-04 at 22:01, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 12:24:53PM +0100, Paul Brook wrote:
> > For the record these hacks are unlikely to ever be acceptable in mainline gcc. 
> > They're relatively invasive changes who's only purpose is to support 
> > fundamentally broken hardware.
> We don't yet know if they'll be invasive. There's a good chance that they
> won't be more than a few new insn patterns, a secondary output reload
> to provide a scratch register and a pair of new options.
I'm confident right now that these will be too invasive to include in

> There are other targets with targets specific options to work around this or
> that bug, quirk, defect or errata. In this case, why would two options
> -mno-byte-writes and -mbyte-writes, with the latter being the default, be
> unlikely to be acceptable? In particular, the MT port has these two options:

The changes that tend to get incorporated into the compiler are to work
around bugs in the CPU, not bugs in some H/W developer's use of the
CPU.  The former affect all users of the processor, the latter only that
one case.

If we started putting in hacks for the latter the compiler back-ends
would become unmaintainable in almost no time at all.

Sorry, it's just not going to happen.


PS.  Using swp is a bad idea IMO, this instruction is *very* slow on
some CPU implementations because of the way it interacts with caches. 
It certainly isn't suitable as a generic solution to this sort of issue.

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