Closed Bug 966881 Opened 6 years ago Closed 6 years ago
ARM Simulator: add support for the ARM hardfp ABI
This bug it for adding ARM hardfp ABI support to the ARM simulator.
Passes jit-tests. Needs the fix from bug 957504. The hardfp ABI looks like becoming more important. There is work to get b2g running using it. So it might be useful to support testing both ABIs. The patch currently requires rebuilding with JS_ARM_SIMULATOR_HARDFP defined, but it might be possible to make it a dynamic decision when using the simulator. Should we try to make the choice of ABI a dynamic decision when using the simulator?
(In reply to Douglas Crosher [:dougc] from comment #1) > Should we try to make the choice of ABI a dynamic decision when using the > simulator? That would be really nice. Once we have a shell build on TBPL we'd only need a single build to make sure there are no hardfp-only build failures. It'd also be nice for testing/fuzzing, shell flags are easier to use than configure flags. Does it require many changes though? A configure flag is still better than nothing :)
Rework to allow the dynamic selection of the ABI when using the simulator. The ARMHWCAP environment variable now accepts a 'hardfp' flag to enable use of the HARDFP ABI, and defaults to the Soft-Float ABI. When not using the simulator the useHardFpABI()function is inlined and the compiler should optimize away unused paths.
Attachment #8370567 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Fix the reading of the 'hardfp' flag from the ARMHWCAP. This patch adds support for the ARM hardfp ABI to the simulator - only a few changes were needed. It also reworks the ARM backend a little to allow the ABI to be dynamically chosen when using the simulator.
Comment on attachment 8372768 [details] [diff] [review] Add support for the ARM hardfp ABI Review of attachment 8372768 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- I'm not all that familiar with the simulator code, but I don't see anything that sticks out like a sore thumb.
Attachment #8372768 - Flags: review?(mrosenberg) → review+
Rebase. Carrying forward r+.
Follow-up fix for style checker orange. Please make sure you run unit tests on these before requesting checkin. https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/9cb76ac4f782 https://tbpl.mozilla.org/php/getParsedLog.php?id=34841145&tree=Mozilla-Inbound
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 6 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla30
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.