[Mono-dev] [PATCH] Mono port to the MIPS 64-bit
mmason at upwardaccess.com
Thu Apr 23 09:31:08 EDT 2009
Hello Miguel, Ian,
I'm working on getting my bcm1480 set back up after my office move (it
supports both o32 and n32), after which I can Ian's patches against
the o32 port.
As for splitting MIPS/MIPS64 - I think keeping them together may be
more appropriate. The MIPS64 code generator is less of a divergence
from MIPS32 than PPC64 is from PPC --- there's a lot of potential code
reuse to be had by keeping them together. That's why I'd started the
n32 port in the way that I did (and that Ian & company continued with
for extending it).
On Apr 22, 2009, at 10:49 AM, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
> Hello Ian,
> Thanks for doing the work in porting Mono to the MIPS64 platform
> for sending the patches our way. Thanks to your developers and to
> SiCortex for funding the port.
> Some comments:
>> We have put 10 patches to the bugzilla.
>> Bug 497320 - [PATCH] Set of Mono MIPS64-bit port patches
>> Our primary goal was porting to the 64-bit platform.
>> Unfortunatelly, we
>> haven't had a chance to test our changes on the box with o32 ABI.
>> There is a
>> probability that we broke something. At least as far as we know,
>> the 64-bit
>> port is the most usable among MIPS ports to this day. We this port
>> we have
>> got quite good results, since regression, extensive and major part
>> of Class
>> Library tests (99,60%) are passed successfully.
> While reviewing the patches, I noticed that this extends the MIPS port
> to support MIPS64. And I am wondering if it would make sense to
> instead a similar setup to what we have done with PowerPC where we
> actually have split things in a few places to differentiate PPC from
> For example we use a cpu-ppc.md and a cpu-ppc64.md files
> Also, we would be happy to give you SVN access so you can merge your
> patches directly as they get approved, please follow the instructions
> As I was reviewing the changes to provide some feedback as to what can
> go in, I found that none of the changes come with ChangeLog entries,
> the rationale for some of the changes is not easy to understand.
> Would you mind providing ChangeLogs that describe what the changes are
> to the various files, in particular the ones that affect the
> existing 32
> bit work from Mark?
> Mono-devel-list mailing list
> Mono-devel-list at lists.ximian.com
More information about the Mono-devel-list