This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Patch] MIPS: supported mips cpu names update (try again)
- From: Richard Sandiford <richard at codesourcery dot com>
- To: David Ung <davidu at mips dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:48:27 +0100
- Subject: Re: [Patch] MIPS: supported mips cpu names update (try again)
- References: <1129040013.1806.196.camel@localhost.localdomain>
David Ung <davidu@mips.com> writes:
> Lets try again. I forgot to include the changes in mips.md and 24k.md
> for the new cpu names in my last email. :(
>
> This patch adds names/alias of cpus currently supported by GCC. The new
> MIPS cpus are 4kec/4kem/4kep/24kec/24kef/24kex/34kc/34kf/34kx. Since
> this is mainly a documentation type patch, would it be ok for
> mainline?
Sorry, but it's stuff like this that shows why even "simple" feature
patches are dangerous ;) We're also in regression-only mode right now,
so I don't think it's appropriate.
One other thing -- and this isn't mentioned in the ChangeLog -- you seem
to be removing support for the "24k" name and requiring one of the more
specific ones instead. E.g.:
> *************** const struct mips_cpu_info mips_cpu_info
> *** 749,758 ****
>
> /* MIPS32 Release 2 */
> { "m4k", PROCESSOR_M4K, 33 },
> ! { "24k", PROCESSOR_24K, 33 },
> ! { "24kc", PROCESSOR_24K, 33 }, /* 24K no FPU */
> ! { "24kf", PROCESSOR_24K, 33 }, /* 24K 1:2 FPU */
> { "24kx", PROCESSOR_24KX, 33 }, /* 24K 1:1 FPU */
>
> /* MIPS64 */
> { "5kc", PROCESSOR_5KC, 64 },
> --- 749,766 ----
>
> /* MIPS32 Release 2 */
> { "m4k", PROCESSOR_M4K, 33 },
> ! { "4kec", PROCESSOR_4KC, 33 },
> ! { "4kem", PROCESSOR_4KC, 33 },
> ! { "4kep", PROCESSOR_4KP, 33 },
> ! { "24kc", PROCESSOR_24KC, 33 }, /* 24K no FPU */
> ! { "24kf", PROCESSOR_24KF, 33 }, /* 24K 1:2 FPU */
> { "24kx", PROCESSOR_24KX, 33 }, /* 24K 1:1 FPU */
> + { "24kec", PROCESSOR_24KC, 33 }, /* 24K with DSP */
> + { "24kef", PROCESSOR_24KF, 33 },
> + { "24kex", PROCESSOR_24KX, 33 },
> + { "34kc", PROCESSOR_24KC, 33 }, /* 34K with MT/DSP */
> + { "34kf", PROCESSOR_24KF, 33 },
> + { "34kx", PROCESSOR_24KX, 33 },
>
> /* MIPS64 */
> { "5kc", PROCESSOR_5KC, 64 },
The patch is consistent on this point, so I assume it's intentional.
Are you sure it's a good idea though?
Richard