Can we undo the octeon hack?

[Juli Mallett]

On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Warner Losh <imp at bsdimp.com> wrote:
>
> On Jul 21, 2013, at 9:00 PM, Juli Mallett wrote:
>
>> I know I shouldn't say this, but: How hard can it be? :P
>>
>> In kern.pre.mk:
>>
>> CFLAGS_PARAM_INLINE_UNIT_GROWTH?=100
>> CFLAGS_PARAM_LARGE_FUNCTION_GROWTH?=1000
>> CFLAGS_PARAM_MAX_INLINE_INSNS_SINGLE?=/* XXX what is default? */
>> CFLAGS+= --param inline-unit-growth=${CFLAGS_PARAM_INLINE_UNIT_GROWTH}
>> CFLAGS+= --param large-function-growth=${CFLAGS_PARAM_LARGE_FUNCTION_GROWTH}
>> CFLAGS+= --param max-inline-insns-single=${CFLAGS_PARAM_MAX_INLINE_INSNS_SINGLE}
>>
>> And then in the Octeon config:
>>
>> makeoptions CFLAGS_PARAM_INLINE_UNIT_GROWTH=10000
>> makeoptions CFLAGS_PARAM_LARGE_FUNCTION_GROWTH=100000
>> makeoptions CFLAGS_PARAM_MAX_INLINE_INSNS_SINGLE=10000
>>
>> Right?
>>
>> Come up with a better name scheme, win 1/20 of 1 US cent.  (Not
>> redeemable for cash.)
>>
>> Most users will never see it; only Octeon needs such behaviour because
>> of how the Simple Executive is implemented.
>
> We're better off than I thought. We can put those in std.octeon1.
>
> Not sure I like having those names, but 1/20 of a cent isn't worth the time it takes to type them...

Long names discourage Gentooish funroll-loopsing! It's a feature!
These are not user-serviceable parts.  Hell, even I can't really
service this stuff effectively.  Having to set them at all is a bug.