From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from de01egw02.freescale.net (de01egw02.freescale.net [192.88.165.103]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "de01egw02.freescale.net", Issuer "Thawte Premium Server CA" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0942EDDEC1 for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2007 01:12:32 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:11:47 -0500 From: Scott Wood To: Kumar Gala Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/28] 8xx: Don't call non-existent Soft_emulate_8xx from SoftwareEmulation. Message-ID: <20070918151147.GB736@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> References: <20070917165746.GP6563@loki.buserror.net> <58472170-34D3-43F4-A816-87AF0020A086@kernel.crashing.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <58472170-34D3-43F4-A816-87AF0020A086@kernel.crashing.org> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , 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? -Scott