From: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com>
To: David Daney <ddaney@caviumnetworks.com>
Cc: linux-mips <linux-mips@linux-mips.org>, GCC <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>,
binutils <binutils@sourceware.org>,
Prasun Kapoor <prasun.kapoor@caviumnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: A new MIPS64 ABI
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 15:56:01 -0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <orzkpx6v2m.fsf@livre.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4D5990A4.2050308@caviumnetworks.com> (David Daney's message of "Mon, 14 Feb 2011 12:29:24 -0800")
On Feb 14, 2011, David Daney <ddaney@caviumnetworks.com> wrote:
> Current MIPS 32-bit ABIs (both o32 and n32) are restricted to 2GB of
> user virtual memory space. This is due the way MIPS32 memory space is
> segmented. Only the range from 0..2^31-1 is available. Pointer
> values are always sign extended.
> The proposed new ABI would only be available on MIPS64 platforms. It
> would be identical to the current MIPS n32 ABI *except* that pointers
> would be zero-extended rather than sign-extended when resident in
> registers.
FTR, I don't really know why my Yeeloong is limited to 31-bit addresses,
and I kind of hoped an n32 userland would improve that WRT o32, without
wasting memory with longer pointers like n64 would.
So, sorry if this is a dumb question, but wouldn't it be much easier to
keep on using sign-extended addresses, and just make sure the kernel
never allocates a virtual memory range that crosses a sign-bit change,
or whatever other reason there is for addresses to be limited to the
positive 2GB range in n32?
--
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/ FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist Red Hat Brazil Compiler Engineer
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-02-15 17:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-02-14 20:29 RFC: A new MIPS64 ABI David Daney
2011-02-15 17:56 ` Alexandre Oliva [this message]
2011-02-15 18:08 ` David Daney
2011-05-06 8:29 ` Alexandre Oliva
2011-05-06 17:00 ` David Daney
2011-02-18 1:02 ` David Daney
[not found] <4D5990A4.2050308__41923.1521235362$1297715435$gmane$org@caviumnetworks.com>
2011-02-21 19:45 ` Richard Sandiford
2011-05-09 14:28 ` Ralf Baechle
2011-05-09 17:47 ` David Daney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=orzkpx6v2m.fsf@livre.localdomain \
--to=aoliva@redhat.com \
--cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
--cc=ddaney@caviumnetworks.com \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=linux-mips@linux-mips.org \
--cc=prasun.kapoor@caviumnetworks.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.