From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steven Seeger Subject: Re: initial porting of IPIPE x86_64 patches onto Linux stable 5.4.52 Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 10:40:13 -0400 Message-ID: <1797573.eGJsNajkDb@omoikane> In-Reply-To: <20200825132500.4c5z6a3yesfe2wbe@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> References: <5621687.alqRGMn8q6@omoikane> <20200825132500.4c5z6a3yesfe2wbe@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit List-Id: Discussions about the Xenomai project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Lennart Sorensen Cc: Jan Kiszka , Greg Gallagher , "Pirou, Florent" , "Wang, Rick Y" , "Hu, Mingliang" , "Xenomai (xenomai@xenomai.org)" On Tuesday, August 25, 2020 9:25:00 AM EDT Lennart Sorensen wrote: > A 5020 is an e5500, which is nothing like an e500. The e500 is PowerpC > SPE, while the e5500 (and the e300, e500mc and e6500) are "real" PowerPC > instead with a somewhat different instruction set. Sorry e500 was a typo in that case. > GCC 9 even dropped support for the PPC SPE, while PPC is fully supported. > Yeah there are e500 boards being made for military, aerospace, and LEO (low earth orbit) uses. There is concern that gcc 9 dropped SPE support, but it's up to vendors to support maintenance of it. > > The e500's existence offends me since it fragments the powerpc > architecture. Yuck. :) Well I won't say anything good or bad about it, but it's the one I know the most since it's what I work with all the time. ;) The worst thing I ever had to deal with was making changes to a 603 instruction set simulator to make it be a 601. The subtle differences between POWER and PowerPC ISAs were quite a pain to find at the time. This was years ago. But yeah all my work (and tested support with xenomai) have been on a e500v2. (8548) Steven