This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] MIPS32 DSP intrinsics
- From: Nigel Stephens <nigel at mips dot com>
- To: Eric Christopher <echristo at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>, Chao-ying Fu <fu at mips dot com>, Richard Sandiford <rsandifo at redhat dot com>,"Thekkath, Radhika" <radhika at mips dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 19:21:25 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS32 DSP intrinsics
- References: <D3DDE6AB-D2BD-11D9-BE69-003065BDF310@apple.com> <1117646283.4744.13.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Eric Christopher wrote:
On Wed, 2005-06-01 at 09:54 -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
Eric Christopher wrote:
I don't want to add the instructions to gcc until the architecture
documents are publicly available.
I don't think I agree with the above. gcc has never insisted on third
party documentation of anything before and I don't see the value in
starting now. Also, bear in mind, we are talking about patch for mips,
from mips.com, not some random neophyte that doesn't have a clue.
True, however I don't want to put information that isn't available (and
likely still under NDA) into the public sources.
If we're releasing them to the FSF, then they're not under NDA - would
you like reassurance from an officer of the company? :-) We're not
concerned about releasing the instruction mnemonics, or their binary
encodings, but the detailed functional description of the instructions
are still embargoed for a couple of months.
Further, I don't think we should require binutils sim support either,
that has never been a general requirement in the past, and should not
be now.
If we're generating the instructions I want some way to be able to test
them. In the past we've had hardware or simulator.
A good principle, for sure. We've got a simulator, and even a real CPU
here - could you not delegate the testing of the DSP ASE extensions to us?
Nigel