Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 08:39:58 -0600 From: Ian Lepore <ian@FreeBSD.org> To: Andrew Turner <andrew@fubar.geek.nz> Cc: freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Updating the minimum armv6 requirement Message-ID: <1394548798.1149.488.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> In-Reply-To: <20140311131945.01f4c9b2@bender> References: <20140311131945.01f4c9b2@bender>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 2014-03-11 at 13:19 +1300, Andrew Turner wrote: > I've been looking at code that uses 64-bit C++ atomic operations on > armv6. These require the ldrexd and strexd instructions that are > present on armv6k. > > The problem is there is a mismatch between clang and binutils. Clang > thinks armv6k is an arm1136jf-s and sets the cpu in the asm output as > one. Binutils will see the cpu and think clang means an earlier armv6 > instruction set that lacks the above instructions. > > In this case both are correct as prior to the r1p0 release of the > arm1136jf-s core it was an armv6 core, and as of the r1p0 release it > became an armv6k core. > > All of this is uninteresting for FreeBSD as the only ARMv6 SoC we run > on appears to be the bcm2835, and maybe some Marvell parts. As the > bcm2835 is an arm1176jzf-s and we are unlikely to get a new ARMv6 port I > am suggesting we make this the minimum requirement. It appears NetBSD > has the same requirement as clang will set the cpu to arm1176jzf-s when > building for NetBSD and armv6. > > My proposal is to have the same CPU requirement as NetBSD for armv6. Is > anyone working on an SoC that would be affected by this? > > Andrew I think this is fine. I thought we already had a rule that armv6k was the minimum. If we just need the compiler to emit a different .cpu directive to keep the assembler happy, that should be fine. Since we don't support the pre-'k' variants of armv6, there should be no conflicts. -- Ia
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1394548798.1149.488.camel>