Re: [PATCH 0/9] target/microblaze: Always use TARGET_LONG_BITS == 32

["Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.iglesias@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 08:26:23AM +0200, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 13/2/25 13:37, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > +AMD folks
> > 
> > On 12/2/25 23:01, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > > Use out-of-line helpers to implement extended address memory ops.
> > > With this, we can reduce TARGET_LONG_BITS to the more natural 32
> > > for this 32-bit cpu.
> > 
> > I thought about something similar 2 months ago, but then realized
> > MicroBlaze cores can be synthetized in 64-bit, and IIRC there is
> > not much missing (I'd say effort would be to add 20% more of what
> > we currently have). Just wanted to mention before taking the
> > decision to restrict to 32-bit. OTOH if there are no plan for
> > adding 64-bit support at AMD, then I'm more than happy to simplify
> > by considering only 32-bit.
> 
> I gave this series another go, and figured the microblaze target
> addition was done way before the 64-bit. C_DATA_SIZE value was fixed
> as 32, and C_ADDR_SIZE was not mentioned. Later C_DATA_SIZE became
> configurable as [32, 64] and C_ADDR_SIZE appeared.
> 
> Indeed what this series does is correctly implement the current
> target as C_DATA_SIZE=32 (C_ADDR_SIZE=32 implied).
> 
> I had a quick look at what is missing for C_DATA_SIZE > 32 and it
> is more than the 20% I first roughly estimated. So with the current
> implementation, this series is doing the right thing IMHO.
>


Hi,

Seems I lost track of this series. I agree that Richard's series looks good.

At the time I may have had some idea of prepping for full 64bit support,
I don't remember. If we ever add full 64bit support we can have have
another look and see how it makes sense to change things.

Cheers,
Edgar