x86 c++ exception handling

Sebastian Huber sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de
Fri Sep 11 10:12:32 UTC 2020

On 11/09/2020 12:08, Karel Gardas wrote:

> On 9/11/20 11:40 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>>> If I'm not mistaken, then this is simply fixed by using other BSP's
>>> variant? Like pc486/pc586/pc686 ... Those optimize for different CPUs
>>> and gcc's lib provides necessary synchronization functions then...
>> The question is if there are RTEMS users in this universe which have x64
>> hardware in use which understands only the pc486/pc586/pc686 instruction
>> sets. This is stuff from the 1990s.
> OK! So first uarch from 2000s is NetBurts and later core. Would you like
> to stop on that? Honestly I'm a bit confused since if you are talking
> about obsoleting '90s then we're in amd64 territory and then the
> question is if to keep 32bit BSP or go straight to 64bit. Unfortunately
> amd64 BSP provides just clock and console IIRC and and in comparison
> with that pc386 supports a lot more features (VESA fb, libbsd)...
> Or do you propose to just add more BSP variants to pc386 to support
> optimization/isns generation for more modern CPUs and deprecate older
> variants?
I don't know. I think we should somehow figure out which x86 hardware is 
in use by RTEMS users.

More information about the devel mailing list