|
From: Julian S. <js...@ac...> - 2006-03-02 20:03:15
|
Hi .. as a side note, please mail questions like this to the dev list,
so that more people get to look at them - not just me.
We have the same problem on a 970 running YDL4. The fact that the
assembler barfs just means the assembler is old. It does not
necessarily mean the machine can't handle them. It may be that
Cerion was going to make a configure test which stops the test from
being done if the assembler can't handle the insn. I don't know
what the state of that is.
J
On Thursday 02 March 2006 19:45, Dave Nomura wrote:
> My nightly build on a Power5 machine is failing because apparently the
> optional instructions: mtocrf/mfocrf are not recognized by the
> assembler. the ppc970 machine's assembler does recognize them. I was
> wondering if the CPU revision number in /proc/cpuinfo possibly could be
> used to determine whether or not these instrs are going to be available.
> On the Power5, /proc/cpuinfo says:
> processor : 0
> cpu : POWER5 (gr)
> clock : 1504.352000MHz
> revision : 2.2
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [Valgrind-developers] valgrind: r5705 - trunk/none/tests/ppc32
> Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 22:36:51 +0000 (GMT)
>
> Author: sewardj
> Date: 2006-03-01 22:36:49 +0000 (Wed, 01 Mar 2006)
> New Revision: 5705
>
> Log:
> A simple test of m{f,t}ocrf.
>
> Added:
> trunk/none/tests/ppc32/mftocrf.c
> trunk/none/tests/ppc32/mftocrf.stderr.exp
> trunk/none/tests/ppc32/mftocrf.stdout.exp
> trunk/none/tests/ppc32/mftocrf.vgtest
> Modified:
> trunk/none/tests/ppc32/Makefile.am
|
|
From: Paul M. <pa...@sa...> - 2006-03-02 20:49:47
|
Julian Seward writes: > We have the same problem on a 970 running YDL4. The fact that the > assembler barfs just means the assembler is old. It does not > necessarily mean the machine can't handle them. That's right. The POWER5 hardware certainly knows about mt/focrf. Paul. |