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 7A180DDE3F for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2007 05:07:15 +1000 (EST) In-Reply-To: <469E3E3F.8050302@freescale.com> References: <20070718013302.GE15238@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> <3F44085F-8A67-4134-95A3-39897F2A84FD@kernel.crashing.org> <469E3E3F.8050302@freescale.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <71A8ECC1-931F-42AE-98B1-A4B90E4B5980@kernel.crashing.org> From: Kumar Gala Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/61] 8xx: Don't call non-existent Soft_emulate_8xx from SoftwareEmulation. Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 13:24:58 -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 Jul 18, 2007, at 11:22 AM, Scott Wood wrote: > Kumar Gala wrote: >> On Jul 17, 2007, at 8:33 PM, 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 soft-float toolchains are now common, I'm deleting the call >>> rather >>> than moving Soft_emulate_8xx over to arch/powerpc. >> We should move the Soft_emulate_8xx code over. I see no reason >> to break a usage model that existed in arch/ppc. > > According to the comment in softemu8xx.c, the only reason for it > was that "it was easier than trying to get the libraries compiled > for software floating point." Given that soft-float toolchains are > easily had now, and that full emulation could be used if one really > needs to work with hard-float binaries, I don't really see the need > for this... > > If you want to move it over and test it, though, be my guest. :-) I don't see any reason to break people that might not have updated their toolchains. There is no reason for us to drop a feature like this w/o some additional warning. I think its fine to just move the code over from arch/powerpc and than in the future we can deal with removing it in a more "proper" manor. - k