Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 17:53:39 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org> To: Benno Rice <benno@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com>, freebsd-ppc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD/powerpc work to date Message-ID: <20010524175339.A13912@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <20010523101643.A70899@rafe.jeamland.net>; from benno@FreeBSD.org on Wed, May 23, 2001 at 10:16:43AM %2B1000 References: <20010521234812.B56326@rafe.jeamland.net> <Pine.BSF.4.33.0105221534590.46007-100000@herring.nlsystems.com> <20010523101643.A70899@rafe.jeamland.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 10:16:43AM +1000, Benno Rice wrote: > > Nice! Reading through the changes, I have a couple of comments. In > > mp_machdep.c, you should remove the 'include <machine/rpb.h>' - that is > > only ever likely to exist on alpha. You can alsp delete ipl.h since that > > has been removed for the other arches. > > Ah. I started with the code from NetBSD and pulled bits from around the tree > to fill gaps, so there's some weirdness in there. =) I would rather not see things with NetBSD weirdness we do not understand committed. Otherwise these bits will last forever and we'll have a platform who's code smells different from the other smelling two we already have. I cannot tell from your reply if you are going to act on DFR's issue. You only explained the why, not what you plan to do about it. > > In swtch.s, you are correct in thinking that Idle is unneeded. A generic > > assembler question - why the use of _C_LABEL(xx)? Surely since we are only > > ever going to be using ELF here, we can assume the format of C names? Its > > difficult to see what is happening since I'm not familiar with powerpc > > assembler but it appears that you are saving the process state on the > > stack (using a 'struct switchframe'). The other architectures save this > > information in the PCB - I'm not sure which is the best place. > > This is probably NetBSD code. Since I haven't got that far yet, it's pretty > much unchanged except that I separated their locore.s into smaller files as > per the other FreeBSD ports. See my concerns above. I especially feel this way about strange macros. Those of us reading both Alpha and x86 headers often have to scratch our heads what these NetBSD macros do, etc.. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ppc" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010524175339.A13912>