* proposed gcc/gas -mb-step changes
@ 2004-04-13 7:17 Jim Wilson
2004-04-13 22:48 ` David Mosberger
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Jim Wilson @ 2004-04-13 7:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-ia64
Zack Weinberg of CodeSourcery sent mail to the binutils mailing list
which proposes to add a new -mb-step option to the assembler.
Currently, gas will always give warnings if given code which triggers an
Itanium (Merced) B-step errata. The proposal is to only warn when the
new -mb-step option is used. Also, this means that the existing gcc
option -mb-step will have to pass -mb-step to the assembler. The
discussion is here
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2004-04/msg00187.html
The linux kernel is the only code I know of that uses the gcc -mb-step
option. This is used if you configure with B-step support enabled.
This change means that the kernel should be modified to add -mb-step to
aflags when the B-step support is enabled, just like it currently does
for cflags. Gas will fail if given a -m option it doesn't recognize, so
this means that these changes will only work with new assembler
versions. I am assuming that use of the B-step support is rare enough
that this won't be a problem.
--
Jim Wilson, GNU Tools Support, http://www.SpecifixInc.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: proposed gcc/gas -mb-step changes
2004-04-13 7:17 proposed gcc/gas -mb-step changes Jim Wilson
@ 2004-04-13 22:48 ` David Mosberger
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: David Mosberger @ 2004-04-13 22:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-ia64
>>>>> On 13 Apr 2004 00:17:32 -0700, Jim Wilson <wilson@specifixinc.com> said:
Jim> Zack Weinberg of CodeSourcery sent mail to the binutils mailing
Jim> list which proposes to add a new -mb-step option to the
Jim> assembler. Currently, gas will always give warnings if given
Jim> code which triggers an Itanium (Merced) B-step errata. The
Jim> proposal is to only warn when the new -mb-step option is used.
Jim> Also, this means that the existing gcc option -mb-step will
Jim> have to pass -mb-step to the assembler. The discussion is here
Jim> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2004-04/msg00187.html
Jim> The linux kernel is the only code I know of that uses the gcc
Jim> -mb-step option. This is used if you configure with B-step
Jim> support enabled. This change means that the kernel should be
Jim> modified to add -mb-step to aflags when the B-step support is
Jim> enabled, just like it currently does for cflags. Gas will fail
Jim> if given a -m option it doesn't recognize, so this means that
Jim> these changes will only work with new assembler versions. I am
Jim> assuming that use of the B-step support is rare enough that
Jim> this won't be a problem.
Seems like an acceptable solution to me.
IIRC, the Errata being worked around by -mb-step was exceedingly rare
to trigger and I'm not even sure it was ever observed to trigger in a
realworld situation. If so, perhaps it would be OK to drop -mb-step
entirely. That would cause a small risk for users of B-step Itanium
(Merced) CPUs, but I can't imagine anyone is doing anything
"mission-critical" on prototype machines anyhow. For testing etc.,
the a kernel compiled without -mb-step should still be usable, AFAIK.
--david
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-04-13 22:48 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-04-13 7:17 proposed gcc/gas -mb-step changes Jim Wilson
2004-04-13 22:48 ` David Mosberger
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox