Naming mess...
Tim Kientzle
kientzle at freebsd.org
Fri Jun 29 04:45:28 UTC 2012
On Jun 28, 2012, at 3:31 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
> On Jun 28, 2012, at 4:15 PM, Ian Lepore wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-06-26 at 22:21 -0700, Tim Kientzle wrote:
>>>
>>> Here's what I would like to do:
>>>
>>> * The first is a given and we should leave it alone. The patches I'm cleaning up make this useful in the armv6 tree.
>>>
>>> * The second I would like to move out of asm.h so it can be used in C code. I would like to rename it to _HAVE_ARMv6_INSTRUCTIONS, which I think is clearer. I have renamed it in my patches but not yet moved it to another header. Suggestions appreciated.
>>>
>>> "NEED_ARM_ARCH_6_SUPPORT" * Someday, I would like to rename the third one, though I don't have a concrete proposal yet. ("NEED_ARM_ARCH_6_SUPPORT" is expressive but wordy; better suggestions appreciated.)
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> [0] This page has a nice table: https://wiki.edubuntu.org/ARM/Thumb2PortingHowto
>>>
>>
>> I'm not working with armv6 stuff yet, but I like all of what you
>> propose. I can't help but note that NEED_ARM_ARCH_6_SUPPORT is actually
>> shorter than _HAVE_ARMv6_INSTRUCTIONS. If it's just too wordy, maybe
>> the "NEED_" part could be left off.
>
> #define ARM_ARCH 6
>
> #if ARM_ARCH >= 6
> ...
> #endif
>
> Might not be the worst idea...
I don't think ARM ISA versions are completely
well ordered. I seem to recall seeing a few cases
where "later" processors have dropped instructions
that were present in "earlier" processors.
Tim
More information about the freebsd-arm
mailing list