public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/54760] [SH] Add __builtin_thread_pointer, __builtin_set_thread_pointer
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 20:29:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-54760-4-PtCyHicxug@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-54760-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54760
Oleg Endo <olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
CC| |kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|FIXED |
--- Comment #5 from Oleg Endo <olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-10-11 20:29:12 UTC ---
It seems that the proposed target independent thread pointer stuff made it into
mainline. I guess the SH specific built-ins can be removed now. I will check
it out.
Another thing that I'm not sure about is whether 'ldc rn,gbr' and 'stc
gbr,rn' instructions can go in the delay slot, or whether they will cause a
slot illegal exception. Currently this
void* test (void)
{
return __builtin_thread_pointer ();
}
will result in
rts
stc gbr,r0
I've looked in the source of the GDB sim and it seems that the sim will not
detect this as a slot illegal instruction. However, the sim will also not
detect 'stc sgr,rn' as a slot illegal instruction, but in my older
interrupt/exception code I was doing:
stc sgr,r15
rte
nop
because otherwise it would cause trouble.
The HW manuals unfortunately don't mention any details. Basically all of them
say: stc, stc.l, ldc, ldc.l instructions might cause a slot illegal exception.
But it doesn't say which register combinations are slot illegal and which are
legal.
Kaz, do you happen to know something regarding this matter?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-11 20:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-09-30 17:00 [Bug target/54760] New: " olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-09-30 17:01 ` [Bug target/54760] " olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-06 11:20 ` olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-08 2:01 ` olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-09 18:59 ` olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-09 19:42 ` olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-11 20:29 ` olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2012-10-12 0:14 ` kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-12 0:27 ` olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-12 0:43 ` kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-12 0:46 ` olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-12 0:51 ` olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-15 22:05 ` olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-23 19:25 ` amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-27 13:41 ` olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-03-09 12:36 ` olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=bug-54760-4-PtCyHicxug@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
--to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).