From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92C10DDEC2 for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2007 01:16:14 +1000 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20070918151147.GB736@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> References: <20070917165746.GP6563@loki.buserror.net> <58472170-34D3-43F4-A816-87AF0020A086@kernel.crashing.org> <20070918151147.GB736@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <027F3363-3154-4A16-A251-C56D8DC339A1@kernel.crashing.org> From: Kumar Gala Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/28] 8xx: Don't call non-existent Soft_emulate_8xx from SoftwareEmulation. Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:19:05 -0500 To: Scott Wood Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sep 18, 2007, at 10:11 AM, Scott Wood wrote: > On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 10:08:50AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: >> >> On Sep 17, 2007, at 11:57 AM, Scott Wood wrote: >> >>> On arch/ppc, Soft_emulate_8xx was used when full math emulation was >>> turned off to emulate a minimal subset of floating point load/store >>> instructions, to avoid needing a soft-float toolchain. This >>> function >>> is called, but not present, on arch/powerpc, causing a build error >>> if floating point emulation is turned off. >>> >>> As: >>> 1. soft-float toolchains are now common, >>> 2. partial emulation could mislead someone into thinking they have >>> a soft-float userspace because things usually work, only to have it >>> fail when actual FP gets executed under unusual circumstances, and >>> 3. full emulation is still available for those who need to run >>> non-soft-float userspace, >>> >>> I'm deleting the call rather than moving Soft_emulate_8xx over to >>> arch/powerpc. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Scott Wood >> >> I'm still not in favor of this and think we should move the >> Soft_emulate_8xx code over. > > Any particular reasons that outweigh the reasons I gave, especially > #2? Mainly that 8xx has been doing this for a vast number of years and I see no reason to stop doing it at this point. While I can see that it might be misleading, clearly 8xx linux users haven't had issues with it. - k