From: Ralf Baechle <ralf@oss.sgi.com>
To: "Kevin D. Kissell" <kevink@mips.com>
Cc: <linux-mips@oss.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: Can't build a CONFIG_CPU_NEVADA kernel
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 20:35:40 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20010316203540.D2857@bacchus.dhis.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <010201c0ae49$6df089e0$0deca8c0@Ulysses>; from kevink@mips.com on Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 07:46:23PM +0100
On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 07:46:23PM +0100, Kevin D. Kissell wrote:
> > GCC to schedule instructions for a certain processor xxx. This does not
> > enable the full use of it's instruction set. Back in time when I choose
> > these options I choose because GCC didn't know -mcpu=r5000 but the R8000
> > was supported and it was the closest fit. Gcc 1.1.2 knows this option
> > so I just changed all instances of -mcpu=r8000 into -mcpu=r5000.
>
> As I understand it, the original intention behind -mcpu was to optimise
> instruction scheduling, but it got perverted over time to enable
> instructions as well. In any case, the R5000 and R8000 have the
> same ISA, but the pipelines are radically different. The R8K is
> 4-way superscalar, with a 2-cycle branch penalty and branch
> prediction. The R5K is two way supercalar (Int/FP pairs only)
> with classic MIPS branch behavior, etc.
Gcc's knowledge about MIPS architecture is so limited that an R5000 isn't
very much different from an R8000 ...
> > Unfortunately true but there is a reason that QED's manual marks it as an
> > proprietary extension ...
>
> Yup. The quesiton is, does gcc's -mmad option actually
> select based on -mcpu or some other variable which
> semantics to use, or does it assume R4650 semantics
If you have a collection which of the CPUs have implemented mmad in what
way I'd like to use that to put it into gcc.
> (I had the impression that it was the R4650 that drove
> the implementation of MIPS madd's into gcc - correct
> me if I'm wrong).
Guess that's right.
Ralf
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Ralf Baechle <ralf@oss.sgi.com>
To: "Kevin D. Kissell" <kevink@mips.com>
Cc: linux-mips@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: Can't build a CONFIG_CPU_NEVADA kernel
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 20:35:40 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20010316203540.D2857@bacchus.dhis.org> (raw)
Message-ID: <20010316193540.HyRswpRtx_43_ionnLzkMr69GNJKDgCtdG3S7VqEtik@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <010201c0ae49$6df089e0$0deca8c0@Ulysses>; from kevink@mips.com on Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 07:46:23PM +0100
On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 07:46:23PM +0100, Kevin D. Kissell wrote:
> > GCC to schedule instructions for a certain processor xxx. This does not
> > enable the full use of it's instruction set. Back in time when I choose
> > these options I choose because GCC didn't know -mcpu=r5000 but the R8000
> > was supported and it was the closest fit. Gcc 1.1.2 knows this option
> > so I just changed all instances of -mcpu=r8000 into -mcpu=r5000.
>
> As I understand it, the original intention behind -mcpu was to optimise
> instruction scheduling, but it got perverted over time to enable
> instructions as well. In any case, the R5000 and R8000 have the
> same ISA, but the pipelines are radically different. The R8K is
> 4-way superscalar, with a 2-cycle branch penalty and branch
> prediction. The R5K is two way supercalar (Int/FP pairs only)
> with classic MIPS branch behavior, etc.
Gcc's knowledge about MIPS architecture is so limited that an R5000 isn't
very much different from an R8000 ...
> > Unfortunately true but there is a reason that QED's manual marks it as an
> > proprietary extension ...
>
> Yup. The quesiton is, does gcc's -mmad option actually
> select based on -mcpu or some other variable which
> semantics to use, or does it assume R4650 semantics
If you have a collection which of the CPUs have implemented mmad in what
way I'd like to use that to put it into gcc.
> (I had the impression that it was the R4650 that drove
> the implementation of MIPS madd's into gcc - correct
> me if I'm wrong).
Guess that's right.
Ralf
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-03-16 19:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-03-14 13:46 Can't build a CONFIG_CPU_NEVADA kernel Daniel Jacobowitz
2001-03-14 18:59 ` Ralf Baechle
2001-03-14 19:05 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2001-03-14 19:20 ` Ralf Baechle
2001-03-14 19:48 ` Jun Sun
2001-03-14 20:02 ` Ralf Baechle
2001-03-14 20:56 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2001-03-14 22:11 ` Kevin D. Kissell
2001-03-14 22:11 ` Kevin D. Kissell
2001-03-14 22:47 ` Kevin D. Kissell
2001-03-14 22:47 ` Kevin D. Kissell
2001-03-15 1:50 ` Pete Popov
2001-03-15 8:01 ` Kevin D. Kissell
2001-03-15 8:01 ` Kevin D. Kissell
2001-03-16 14:04 ` Ralf Baechle
2001-03-16 14:04 ` Ralf Baechle
2001-03-16 18:02 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2001-03-16 18:16 ` Ralf Baechle
2001-03-16 18:46 ` Kevin D. Kissell
2001-03-16 18:46 ` Kevin D. Kissell
2001-03-16 19:35 ` Ralf Baechle [this message]
2001-03-16 19:35 ` Ralf Baechle
2001-03-16 15:34 ` Ralf Baechle
2001-03-16 15:34 ` Ralf Baechle
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20010316203540.D2857@bacchus.dhis.org \
--to=ralf@oss.sgi.com \
--cc=kevink@mips.com \
--cc=linux-mips@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox