On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:37 AM, Daniel Hellstrom <dan...@gaisler.com> wrote: > On 05/21/2014 10:01 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote: >> >> Hello Gedare, >> >> thanks for your review. >> >> On 2014-05-20 16:58, Gedare Bloom wrote: >>>> >>>> @@ -54,7 +58,15 @@ SYM(_CPU_Context_switch): >>>> > ld [%g6 + SPARC_PER_CPU_ISR_DISPATCH_DISABLE], %o4 >>>> > ! save it a bit later so we do not waste a couple of cycles >>>> > >>>> >+#ifdef RTEMS_PARAVIRT_XTRATUM >>>> >+ mov %o0, %l6 >>>> >+ mov sparc_get_psr_nr, %o0 >>>> >+ __XM_AHC >>> >>> I'm guessing these symbols are defined in xm.h? >>> >>>> >+ mov %o0, %o2 >>>> >+ mov %l6, %o0 >>>> >+#else /* RTEMS_PARAVIRT_XTRATUM */ >>>> > rd %psr, %o2 >>>> >+#endif /* RTEMS_PARAVIRT_XTRATUM */ >>> >>> It would be cleaner code if you can write this get_psr as an assembler >>> macro, e.g. >>> >>> .macro GET_PSR REG, TMP0 >>> #ifdef RTEMS_PARAVIRT_XTRATUM >>> mov %o0, \TMP >>> mov sparc_get_psr_nr, %o0 >>> __XM_AHC >>> mov %o0, \REG >>> mov \TMP, %o0 >>> #else >>> rd %psr, \REG >>> #endif >>> >>> Same for some of the other functions that get used multiple times in >>> this file, such as set_psr, set_pil, and clear_pil. Putting these in a >>> header file would make them useful in start.S also. >>> >>> [...] >>> >> >> I also think that assembler macros could be useful here. >> >> Daniel, what is you opinion with respect to the usage of assembler macros >> in this file? > > > Personally I prefer C preprocessor macros/defines mixed with the ASM code > instead. If the RTEMS project uses ASM macros I'm fine with it. > I noticed there was a macro in that file already, so I guess there is precedence for using them. Possibly this issue needs to be taken up at a higher level as a coding convention practice, as to whether to avoid ASM macros or not. I can see reasons for and against. -Gedare
> Thanks, > Daniel > > _______________________________________________ rtems-devel mailing list rtems-devel@rtems.org http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel
