On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 12:43:42PM -0700, Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>
> I'm pretty sure NetBSD could never run on a 68000 since the 68000
> had no memory management unit. The 68010 and 68020 didn't have memory
> management units either, but Sun did proprietary MMUs for both (that's
> sun2 and sun3,
Dennis,
while the MC68020 did not have an MMU onboard there where Motorola PMMUs
out there (MC68851). In the beginning there was an FPGA solution that
emulated a subset of the MC68851 PMMU via the Coprocessor interface.
Later when the PMMU became available it was also used in designs. E. g.
I
martin@ wrote:
> It doesn't really matter for .S files, as long as the code does not mutate
> due to ifdefs - or am I missing something?
Just FYI,
as(1) converts
"jbsr [LABEL]" lines into
"jsr [absolute address]" with -m68000, and
"bsrl [relative address]" with -m68020.
The latter is not suppor
dennis wrote:
> That generic x68x requires a 68030 makes sense since that's the first
> CPU where the code can count on knowing how the MMU works.
Well, it's not a guess but the design of NetBSD/x68k.
> A 68020
> would have a manufacturer-specific MMU,
Note there is Motorola MC68851 PMMU for 68
On 15 Apr, 2014, at 05:14 , Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
> - NetBSD/x68k supports only X680x0 machines with MC68030 and higher
> processors.
>
> - Normal X68000 machines (i.e. all X680x0 except X68030) have MC68000,
> so 030 accelerators are required for the X68000 models, i.e.
> XVI, SUPER, EXPERT,
mrg@ wrote:
> Martin Husemann writes:
> > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 04:51:29PM +1000, matthew green wrote:
> > > hmmm this option is now called -march=68000.
I don't think this is correct.
> > > i don't think any
> > > x68k are 68000 are they? all 020/030/040? perhaps using
> > > -mcpu=m68020 her
Martin Husemann writes:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 04:51:29PM +1000, matthew green wrote:
> > hmmm this option is now called -march=68000. i don't think any
> > x68k are 68000 are they? all 020/030/040? perhaps using
> > -mcpu=m68020 here might be best? i would test some and see if
> > size or
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 04:51:29PM +1000, matthew green wrote:
> hmmm this option is now called -march=68000. i don't think any
> x68k are 68000 are they? all 020/030/040? perhaps using
> -mcpu=m68020 here might be best? i would test some and see if
> size or speed matters any.
It doesn't real
"Tetsuya Isaki" writes:
> Module Name: src
> Committed By: isaki
> Date: Mon Apr 14 14:24:27 UTC 2014
>
> Modified Files:
> src/sys/arch/x68k/stand/boot_ustar: Makefile
>
> Log Message:
> Remove -mc68000 asm option for GCC4.8 (or new binutils?).
> With this option, new gcc complai
