RE: Unrecognized opcode: `mtdcr'

RE: Unrecognized opcode: `mtdcr'

[Cameron, Steve]

[..snip...]
>
> I think we need to change arch/ppc/Makefile from:
> ifdef CONFIG_40x
> CFLAGS := $(CFLAGS) -Wa,-m405
> endif
>
> To:
> ifdef CONFIG_4xx
> CFLAGS := $(CFLAGS) -Wa,-m405
> endif

Ok, this worked for me.  Thanks!  (I guess I wasn't so
far off track after all.)

> For the moment.  Until there's some 440-specific opcodes we use (are
> there any?) which means we'll need to do -Wa,-m440.

When I had tried "-Wa,-m440" before, it wasn't recognized as an option.
(but perhaps by "do -Wa,-m440", you mean enhance the C compiler and/or
assembler.)

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Unrecognized opcode: `mtdcr'

[Tom Rini]

On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 02:30:16PM -0500, Cameron, Steve wrote:
> [..snip...]
> >
> > I think we need to change arch/ppc/Makefile from:
> > ifdef CONFIG_40x
> > CFLAGS := $(CFLAGS) -Wa,-m405
> > endif
> >
> > To:
> > ifdef CONFIG_4xx
> > CFLAGS := $(CFLAGS) -Wa,-m405
> > endif
>
> Ok, this worked for me.  Thanks!  (I guess I wasn't so
> far off track after all.)
>
> > For the moment.  Until there's some 440-specific opcodes we use (are
> > there any?) which means we'll need to do -Wa,-m440.
>
> When I had tried "-Wa,-m440" before, it wasn't recognized as an option.
> (but perhaps by "do -Wa,-m440", you mean enhance the C compiler and/or
> assembler.)

Well, iff there's 440-specific opcodes, at somepoint gas will know about
them, and we can use -Wa,-m440, or so.  But for now -Wa,-m405 seems
correct for 4xx.

--
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Unrecognized opcode: `mtdcr'

[Matt Porter]

On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 12:54:29PM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 02:30:16PM -0500, Cameron, Steve wrote:
> > [..snip...]
> > >
> > > I think we need to change arch/ppc/Makefile from:
> > > ifdef CONFIG_40x
> > > CFLAGS := $(CFLAGS) -Wa,-m405
> > > endif
> > >
> > > To:
> > > ifdef CONFIG_4xx
> > > CFLAGS := $(CFLAGS) -Wa,-m405
> > > endif
> >
> > Ok, this worked for me.  Thanks!  (I guess I wasn't so
> > far off track after all.)

Pushed this.

> > > For the moment.  Until there's some 440-specific opcodes we use (are
> > > there any?) which means we'll need to do -Wa,-m440.
> >
> > When I had tried "-Wa,-m440" before, it wasn't recognized as an option.
> > (but perhaps by "do -Wa,-m440", you mean enhance the C compiler and/or
> > assembler.)
>
> Well, iff there's 440-specific opcodes, at somepoint gas will know about
> them, and we can use -Wa,-m440, or so.  But for now -Wa,-m405 seems
> correct for 4xx.

There is _a_ 440-specific opcode, dlbmnz.  It's not yet supported by
gas (and ideally glibc).  For now, a 405 enabled toolchain is
sufficient.

When I push some CONFIG_BOOKE cleanup we'll have an option to enable
-mbooke with as well.  That's where most of the new instructions
come from, but they aren't 440 specific (they'll be on the e500
Book E core as well).  Right now, the important booke opcodes
are picked up by the PPC403 conf in gas so there's not a huge
hurry.

Regards,
--
Matt Porter
porter@cox.net
This is Linux Country. On a quiet night, you can hear Windows reboot.

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Unrecognized opcode: `mtdcr'

[Matt Porter]

On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 01:43:50PM -0700, Matt Porter wrote:
> There is _a_ 440-specific opcode, dlbmnz.  It's not yet supported by
> gas (and ideally glibc).  For now, a 405 enabled toolchain is
> sufficient.

Heh, can't type...the opcode is dlmzb.

-Matt

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Memory usage

[Owen Green]

Hi all,

I`m currently developing applications for a linuxppc
embedded system (mpc8xx) with linux-2.4.4 from denx
and I realised that even with a tiny application I
spent something like 140k on my RAM area, where at
least 100k of that is for ld-2.2.3.so, I guess.
The question is, am I right? Is there a way to share
the code section of ld-2.2.3.so along applications? Is
there a way to get this memory size down?

Thanks in advance,

Owen.


** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/