Re: Is pmax alive?
Felix Deichmann <[email protected]> Mon, 13 Jun 2016 11:33:18 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.os.netbsd.ports.pmax |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CALX=d=dSypoRuAMhLsE6i+-J3MMVqE5rhx43+hQrPro_bEznhA@mail.gmail.com> |
2016-06-13 2:23 GMT+02:00 David Holland <[email protected]>: > The problem I've always had is getting authoritative information about > the requirements. > > That and (especially on early r3xxx and r4xxx models) some of them > vary randomly from model to model. You are probably not asking for the basics from Patterson and Hennesy's academic standard work on this topic, right? Is something like the "MIPS32 Architecture For Programmers" what you are looking for? (Then get it as long as it is still online! :)) http://www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs3410/2008fa/MIPS_Vol1.pdf http://www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs3410/2008fa/MIPS_Vol2.pdf http://www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs3410/2008fa/MIPS_Vol3.pdf Volume 3, chapter 7 is about "CP0 hazards", seems to have such a "canonical table" you asked for, although: "Some MIPS implementations have placed the entire burden on the kernel programmer to pad the instruction stream in such a way that the second instruction is spaced far enough from the first that the effects of the first are seen by the second. Other MIPS implementations have added full hardware interlocks such that the kernel programmer need not pad." sounds like we would need the docs for each implementation (i. e. the actual CPU implementation) to tell what to do exactly, as you already mentioned? Regards, Felix