> -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Sandiford [mailto:rdsandif...@googlemail.com] > Sent: 08 May 2014 20:28 > To: Andrew Bennett > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Matthew Fortune; Saeed Ghazanfar; Rich Fuhler > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add support for MIPS r3 and r5 > > Andrew Bennett <andrew.benn...@imgtec.com> writes: > > diff --git a/gcc/config/mips/mips-cpus.def b/gcc/config/mips/mips-cpus.def > > index 07fbf9c..f2e23c6 100644 > > --- a/gcc/config/mips/mips-cpus.def > > +++ b/gcc/config/mips/mips-cpus.def > > @@ -44,9 +44,13 @@ MIPS_CPU ("mips4", PROCESSOR_R8000, 4, 0) > > isn't tuned to a specific processor. */ > > MIPS_CPU ("mips32", PROCESSOR_4KC, 32, PTF_AVOID_BRANCHLIKELY) > > MIPS_CPU ("mips32r2", PROCESSOR_74KF2_1, 33, PTF_AVOID_BRANCHLIKELY) > > +MIPS_CPU ("mips32r3", PROCESSOR_M4K, 34, PTF_AVOID_BRANCHLIKELY) > > +MIPS_CPU ("mips32r5", PROCESSOR_74KF2_1, 36, PTF_AVOID_BRANCHLIKELY) > > Looks odd for mips32r2 and mips32r5 to have the same processor tuning > but mips32r3 to be different. I assume 74KF2_1 is just a reasonable > default, given the lack of tuning for a real r5 CPU? That's fine if so, > but probably deserves a comment.
mips32r3 is basically micromips, so I have just used the same processor definition that the micromips entry uses. On the processor for mips32r5 we should probably think of adding a processor definition for the P5600, but using 74KF2_1 for the moment will be fine (and I will add a comment to explain this). > > @@ -141,7 +151,8 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see > > "%{EL:-m elf32lmip} \ > > %{EB:-m elf32bmip} \ > > %(endian_spec) \ > > - %{G*} %{mips1} %{mips2} %{mips3} %{mips4} %{mips32} %{mips32r2} > %{mips64} \ > > + %{G*} %{mips1} %{mips2} %{mips3} %{mips4} %{mips32} %{mips32r2} > \ > > + %{mips32r3} %{mips32r5} %{mips64} \ > > %(netbsd_link_spec)" > > > > #define NETBSD_ENTRY_POINT "__start" > > Not sure the omission of mips64r2 was deliberate here, or in vxworks.h. Yes it was deliberate: mips64r2 was already missing from the original ASM_SPEC in vxworks.h and the LINK_SPEC in netbsfd.h. > > As Joseph said, the .po stuff should be left alone. The .pot file is > regenerated near to a release so that the translators can update the > .po files. Thats fine, (and many thanks for both of you for clarifying this). I will remove the changes from the patch. > Looks good otherwise, thanks. I will prepare the revised patch, and will commit it once the copyright assignment issues have been resolved. Many thanks, Andrew