* x86: IAMCU, L1OM, and K1OM
@ 2022-03-07 11:04 Jan Beulich
2022-03-07 14:09 ` H.J. Lu
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Jan Beulich @ 2022-03-07 11:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: H.J. Lu; +Cc: Binutils
H.J.,
may I ask what the status / purpose of these is? They were added years
ago, but actually useful functionality has never appeared. Since I've
noticed a couple of issues with the involved gas code, I'm now
wondering: Should I try to make fixes, or can the logic rather be
purged altogether? Even if the overhead isn't high, the presence of
support for these not really usable sub-architectures is causing some
extra cycles to be wasted on each and every gas invocation.
Thanks for any insight into possible plans here,
Jan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: x86: IAMCU, L1OM, and K1OM
2022-03-07 11:04 x86: IAMCU, L1OM, and K1OM Jan Beulich
@ 2022-03-07 14:09 ` H.J. Lu
2022-03-07 14:14 ` Jan Beulich
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: H.J. Lu @ 2022-03-07 14:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Beulich; +Cc: Binutils
On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 3:04 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>
> H.J.,
>
> may I ask what the status / purpose of these is? They were added years
> ago, but actually useful functionality has never appeared. Since I've
> noticed a couple of issues with the involved gas code, I'm now
> wondering: Should I try to make fixes, or can the logic rather be
> purged altogether? Even if the overhead isn't high, the presence of
> support for these not really usable sub-architectures is causing some
> extra cycles to be wasted on each and every gas invocation.
>
> Thanks for any insight into possible plans here,
> Jan
>
We can deprecate L1OM and K1OM. But we should
keep IAMCU.
Thanks.
--
H.J.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: x86: IAMCU, L1OM, and K1OM
2022-03-07 14:09 ` H.J. Lu
@ 2022-03-07 14:14 ` Jan Beulich
2022-03-07 14:19 ` H.J. Lu
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Jan Beulich @ 2022-03-07 14:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: H.J. Lu; +Cc: Binutils
On 07.03.2022 15:09, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 3:04 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>> may I ask what the status / purpose of these is? They were added years
>> ago, but actually useful functionality has never appeared. Since I've
>> noticed a couple of issues with the involved gas code, I'm now
>> wondering: Should I try to make fixes, or can the logic rather be
>> purged altogether? Even if the overhead isn't high, the presence of
>> support for these not really usable sub-architectures is causing some
>> extra cycles to be wasted on each and every gas invocation.
>
> We can deprecate L1OM and K1OM.
And "deprecate" == "delete" or something less heavy?
> But we should keep IAMCU.
IOW there's stuff to come to actually fill this?
Jan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: x86: IAMCU, L1OM, and K1OM
2022-03-07 14:14 ` Jan Beulich
@ 2022-03-07 14:19 ` H.J. Lu
2022-03-07 14:24 ` Jan Beulich
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: H.J. Lu @ 2022-03-07 14:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Beulich; +Cc: Binutils
On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 6:14 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On 07.03.2022 15:09, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 3:04 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> >> may I ask what the status / purpose of these is? They were added years
> >> ago, but actually useful functionality has never appeared. Since I've
> >> noticed a couple of issues with the involved gas code, I'm now
> >> wondering: Should I try to make fixes, or can the logic rather be
> >> purged altogether? Even if the overhead isn't high, the presence of
> >> support for these not really usable sub-architectures is causing some
> >> extra cycles to be wasted on each and every gas invocation.
> >
> > We can deprecate L1OM and K1OM.
>
> And "deprecate" == "delete" or something less heavy?
We can delete them and make an announcement.
> > But we should keep IAMCU.
>
> IOW there's stuff to come to actually fill this?
>
What do you mean? IAMCU is used.
--
H.J.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: x86: IAMCU, L1OM, and K1OM
2022-03-07 14:19 ` H.J. Lu
@ 2022-03-07 14:24 ` Jan Beulich
2022-03-07 14:48 ` H.J. Lu
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Jan Beulich @ 2022-03-07 14:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: H.J. Lu; +Cc: Binutils
On 07.03.2022 15:19, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 6:14 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>> On 07.03.2022 15:09, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> But we should keep IAMCU.
>>
>> IOW there's stuff to come to actually fill this?
>
> What do you mean? IAMCU is used.
Are you suggesting there is a product which must have appeared long
after the original Pentium, but which only supports i586 insns:
{ "CPU_IAMCU_FLAGS",
"Cpu186|Cpu286|Cpu386|Cpu486|Cpu586" },
I guess I'm puzzled ...
Jan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: x86: IAMCU, L1OM, and K1OM
2022-03-07 14:24 ` Jan Beulich
@ 2022-03-07 14:48 ` H.J. Lu
2022-03-07 14:54 ` Jan Beulich
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: H.J. Lu @ 2022-03-07 14:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Beulich; +Cc: Binutils
On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 6:24 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On 07.03.2022 15:19, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 6:14 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> >> On 07.03.2022 15:09, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >>> But we should keep IAMCU.
> >>
> >> IOW there's stuff to come to actually fill this?
> >
> > What do you mean? IAMCU is used.
>
> Are you suggesting there is a product which must have appeared long
> after the original Pentium, but which only supports i586 insns:
Yes:
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/embedded/products/quark/overview.html
> { "CPU_IAMCU_FLAGS",
> "Cpu186|Cpu286|Cpu386|Cpu486|Cpu586" },
>
> I guess I'm puzzled ...
>
> Jan
>
--
H.J.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: x86: IAMCU, L1OM, and K1OM
2022-03-07 14:48 ` H.J. Lu
@ 2022-03-07 14:54 ` Jan Beulich
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Jan Beulich @ 2022-03-07 14:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: H.J. Lu; +Cc: Binutils
On 07.03.2022 15:48, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 6:24 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 07.03.2022 15:19, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 6:14 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>> On 07.03.2022 15:09, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>>> But we should keep IAMCU.
>>>>
>>>> IOW there's stuff to come to actually fill this?
>>>
>>> What do you mean? IAMCU is used.
>>
>> Are you suggesting there is a product which must have appeared long
>> after the original Pentium, but which only supports i586 insns:
>
> Yes:
>
> https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/embedded/products/quark/overview.html
Oh, I see, thanks for the info. I would never have made a link between iamcu
an Quark.
Jan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-03-07 14:54 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-03-07 11:04 x86: IAMCU, L1OM, and K1OM Jan Beulich
2022-03-07 14:09 ` H.J. Lu
2022-03-07 14:14 ` Jan Beulich
2022-03-07 14:19 ` H.J. Lu
2022-03-07 14:24 ` Jan Beulich
2022-03-07 14:48 ` H.J. Lu
2022-03-07 14:54 ` Jan Beulich
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).