From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho <tuliom@ascii.art.br>
Cc: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>,
gcc@gcc.gnu.org, libc-alpha@sourceware.org,
Paul E Murphy <murphyp@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] powerpc: add documentation for HWCAPs
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2022 14:59:51 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220715195951.GA25951@gate.crashing.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <877d4euskv.fsf@linux.ibm.com>
On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 03:41:20PM -0300, Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho wrote:
> Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > +PPC_FEATURE_ARCH_2_05
> > + The processor supports the v2.05 userlevel architecture. Processors
> > + supporting later architectures also set this feature.
>
> I don't think this bit is enabled when processors support later architectures.
> In my tests, this behavior started only with v2.06, i.e. processors that
> support v2.07 enable bit v2.06, but do not enable bit v2.05.
That is a usability problem. Can it be fixed, or will that create its
own compatibility problems? In practice I mean. If it is, the C
libraries could fix it up, for new programs, and then after a while the
kernel can do the sane thing?
How big is the problem, anyway? Is it only 2.05, or also 2.04, 2.03?
Segher
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-07-15 20:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-07-15 1:26 Nicholas Piggin
2022-07-15 14:57 ` Segher Boessenkool
2022-07-15 18:41 ` Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho
2022-07-15 19:59 ` Segher Boessenkool [this message]
2022-07-15 20:17 ` Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho
2022-07-20 9:28 ` Nicholas Piggin
2022-07-29 13:02 ` Michael Ellerman
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=20220715195951.GA25951@gate.crashing.org \
--to=segher@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=fweimer@redhat.com \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=murphyp@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=tuliom@ascii.art.br \
/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).