From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Fri, 08 Sep 2006 18:39:44 +0100 (BST) Received: from dmz.mips-uk.com ([194.74.144.194]:29712 "EHLO dmz.mips-uk.com") by ftp.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S20037816AbWIHRjm (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Sep 2006 18:39:42 +0100 Received: from dmzgw.mips-uk.com ([194.74.144.193] helo=ukservices1.mips.com) by dmz.mips-uk.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1GLkKF-0001L6-00; Fri, 08 Sep 2006 18:39:35 +0100 Received: from highbury.mips.com ([192.168.192.236]) by ukservices1.mips.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1GLkJp-0007KS-00; Fri, 08 Sep 2006 18:39:09 +0100 Message-ID: <4501AABC.1050009@mips.com> Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 18:39:08 +0100 From: Nigel Stephens Organization: MIPS Technologies User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (X11/20060501) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Atsushi Nemoto , ralf@linux-mips.org CC: dan@debian.org, macro@linux-mips.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] fast path for rdhwr emulation for TLS References: <20060710.235553.48797818.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp> <20060711025342.GA6898@nevyn.them.org> <20060711.122014.52129937.nemoto@toshiba-tops.co.jp> In-Reply-To: <20060711.122014.52129937.nemoto@toshiba-tops.co.jp> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MIPS-Technologies-UK-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MIPS-Technologies-UK-MailScanner-From: nigel@mips.com Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 12540 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: nigel@mips.com Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips moto wrote: > >> BTW, if the fast emulation can't handle rdhwr in a delay slot, please >> report a bug on GCC asking it not to put rdhwr in delay slots by >> default. It's probably worthwhile. >> > > If rdhwr was on a delay slot, the slow emulation will be more slower. > So I think rdhwr should not be put on delay slot anyway regardless > fast emulation. > > I asked on GCC bugzilla a few days ago but can not got feedback yet. > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28126 > In spite of the GCC issue, is this patch now at the point where it could be applied, or at least queued? Nigel