RE: R3.14.8 Status

["Denison, PN \(Peter\)" <peter.denison@diamond.ac.uk>]

Apologies. I have been meaning to reply to the talk-talk post about linux-xscale since it was posted on the day I sent you the patch for linux-arm. What timing eh! I will certainly try to do a merge of the two concepts, though I suspect we will need direction on the naming.

I would certainly prefer to define a float format that applies and switch it on/off depending on the architecture, rather than make all the changes depend on #ifdef __arm__ (or similar). I assume that finds favour.

The real question is what to call the architecture. I shall assume linux-arm for now, but would welcome input.

In the followups to the original linux-xscale post, there was also mention of some patches already in CVS for an arm target. I will also try to roll these in.

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Johnson [mailto:anj@aps.anl.gov]
Sent: Tue 15/11/2005 19:18
To: EPICS core-talk
Subject: R3.14.8 Status

[snip] 
Peter Dennison from Diamond sent me a set of patches for linux-arm which 
included very similar changes to those that Peter Milne's patch (URL 
sent to tech-talk on 11/8) supports, but with a different target 
architecture name.  I'd prefer that we only have one linux-arm target 
architecture if we can combine the two, possibly using the same approach 
we took for linux-x86 vs linux-386/486/586/686 targets as regards 
optimization if that's necessary.  Neither set of configure files is 
currently in CVS, and using  #ifdef _armv4l_  may not be the best 
solution - Jeff, should we make this more generic by adding a 
CA_IMPURE_ENDIAN configuration macro?  I'll ask the two Peters to try 
and come up with a common set of configure files for linux-arm if they 
can for the R3.14.9 release.
[snip]

-- 
Peter Denison, Senior Software Engineer
Diamond Light Source Ltd., Diamond House, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon, OX11 0DE
+44 1235 778511