Subject: Re: cpufunc.h
To: John Fremlin <email@example.com>
From: Ben Harris <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/29/2001 18:37:45
On 29 May 2001, John Fremlin wrote:
> > I think it needs to be made clear that __SetCPSR is an internal
> > function, and things shouldn't call it directly.
> Why not? It's handy first thing in bootstrap where you don't care what
> the CPSR was before. It is also handy for the set_stackptr stuff.
In that case it should have a name that makes it clear how it differs from
SetCPSR (or SetCPSR should be renamed). I really don't like the idea of
having two public functions whose names differ only in the number of
underscores at the front.
> Is the current assembly SetCPSR even valid? It can clobber a bunch of
> registers on mode change. Are all these registers caller save in the
r0-r3, r12 are all caller-saved.
> > I'm also slightly dubious about large-scale use of GCC extensions,
> > but if they stay in header files where we can find them, I shan't
> > mutter too loudly.
> At the moment they are spread all over the place in a disorganised
> way. The notion that NetBSD/arm is in any way portable to another
> compiler is quite frankly ridiculous.
That too. Still, I'd rather not see it get any worse.
Ben Harris <email@example.com>
Portmaster, NetBSD/arm26 <URL:http://www.netbsd.org/Ports/arm26/>