mps32 was Re: upcoming snapshot and 4.6.2

gregory.menke at gregory.menke at
Tue Sep 28 15:14:56 UTC 2004

Ralf Corsepius writes:
 > On Tue, 2004-09-28 at 15:51, gregory.menke at wrote:
 > > "Joel Sherrill <joel at>" <joel.sherrill at> writes:
 > >  > Jay Monkman wrote:
 > >  > > Can we get the MIPS32 support in? (I haven't checked lately, so maybe
 > >  > > it's alread in).
 > >  > > 
 > >  > 
 > >  > I don't know if it is in or not.  If it is very intrusive, it will
 > >  > have to go on the trunk.  But if it is mild and blessed (quickly)
 > >  > by you and Greg Menke, then it should be OK to go in.
 > Are you guys referring to the patches attached to PR601?
 > IMHO, with a couple of weeks ahead, I would not be opposed to adding
 > them to rtems-4-6-branch, but ATM, I think these patches are too
 > intrusive to be "rushed into 4.6" "last minute".

PR601 tested OK for me on the Mongoose & JMR3904 when I put submitted
it, but Jay has a couple more patches that I've been slacking off
on... ;) sorry about that.

 > >  > This is one on the edge since it technically is a new feature but
 > >  > I understand it is satisfying a number of users, doesn't require
 > >  > a tool upgrade, and is hopefully minor.
 > Hmm, I know too little about the mips to be sure.
 > The essential question to me is:
 > Is -mips32 compiled code compatible to -mips1 compiled code?

IIRC, the changes are principally #ifdefs to influence cpu_asm related
register stuff, not gcc code generation issues.  The mips32 question
arises infrequently enough that I keep forgetting the details.  I
think the upshot is -mips1 or -mips3 is still required to make gcc do
the right stuff, mips32 is there to force R4000 registers in cases
where they're required.  Anyone, please correct me if I'm

I'm working on it now, but I have to examine the diffs closely.  OTOH,
we do have the Mongoose hardware functional, so testing will be


More information about the users mailing list