Re: Fwd: Bug#561891: Please support sh4
On Tue, Dec 22 2009, Paul Mundt wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 10:16:40PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 22 2009, Paul Mundt wrote:
> > > SH-4A supports synco, SH-4 does not. SH-4A is based on the SH-4, but has
> > > a lot of new instructions and so forth. Folks like to treat them the same
> > > so as to keep the same ABI, but there are a lot of architectural
> > > differences that are ideally not just glossed over. We have been bitten
> > > by these in the past.
> > >
> > > Linux reports different uname values for all of SH-4, SH-4A, and
> > > SH4AL-DSP largely for these reasons, and gcc also has different
> > > preprocessor tokens for each. In this case, an __SH4A__ test can be done
> > > for synco with the above definitions sufficing for all other variants.
> > >
> > > Where this silliness started was with FPU-less variants of SH-4 defining
> > > __SH3__ because the gcc folks decided that an SH-4 without FPU
> > > instructions was "close enough" to the SH-3 ISA, which while generally
> > > true at the time, also ignored the fact that they have completely
> > > different caches -- SH-4/SH-4A/SH4AL-DSP parts end up having to do
> > > I-cache block invalidations from the libc, while SH-3 does not. SH-4 and
> > > SH-4A preprocessor tokens on the other hand are sensibly abstracted, so
> > > there is no reason to pretend like everything is SH-4.
> >
> > Thanks for the clarification, Paul. One last question... Will __SH4A__
> > cover sh5 as well, or does it need a __SH5__?
> >
> That will need an __SH5__. SH-4A got things like synco from the SH-5 ISA,
> so in most of these cases a test for __SH4A__ or __SH5__ will do. This is
> how the kernel does it today at least (although only the instruction
> mnemonic is preserved, the actual encoding and instruction size are
> completely different).
Excellent, fio cares much less for the actual encoding :-)
The original patch was for sh4(a) only, but I'll add sh5 support once
that is committed.
--
Jens Axboe
Reply to: