This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] memset.S and PowerPC
- From: Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de>
- To: "Steve Munroe" <sjmunroe at us dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: Geoff Keating <geoffk at redhat dot com>, libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 18:03:15 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] memset.S and PowerPC
- References: <OF5CEACCFB.7814313D-ON86256BDC.005505B3@rchland.ibm.com>
"Steve Munroe" <sjmunroe@us.ibm.com> writes:
> Andreas Jaeger writes:
>
>>> Please do not fix code this way. glibc follows the GNU Coding
>>> standards and those define how comments should be done.
>
> Oops, I did not intend this as a final patch, to be integrated, but as a
> work around for David Mueller to try. The final and preferred solution is a
> bit more complicated ...
Now I see.
>>> Do you really want a nop here?
>
> I am not sure but the base code is full of comments like:
>
> /* 40th instruction from .align */
>
> Which implies that the alignment of code (within the i-cache) was
> important. While this is likely only an important issue for early (601,
> 603, ...) PowerPC processors, I wanted to avoid messing with the implied
> magic. This is not an important issue for the 64-bit PowerPC
In that case just add this as a comment along the nop (if that's the
final solution)
> implementations which I am most familiar. Perhaps Geoff remembers the
> background on this? Does this still matter for the current inventory of
> Linux/PowerPC systems in use today?
>
>>> Can you send a clean, working patch, please?
>
> I can, but do you want this patch or the more comprehensive solution that
> deals with dcbz for different cache-line sizes?
Geoff or Ulrich have the final ok here. My personal opionion would be
the "more comprehensive" solution. Geoff, what do you think?
Andreas
--
Andreas Jaeger
SuSE Labs aj@suse.de
private aj@arthur.inka.de
http://www.suse.de/~aj