On Tue, 4 Nov 2008, Kumba wrote: > But I guess the question I'm pondering, is just how rare would it be for > someone to actually need a MIPS-I binary with ll/sc and branch-likely fixes to > run on something like an R10000? Rare enough to justify denying them that > particular command argument combination, and thus taking Option #1? Or go the > extra mile for Option #2? I don't know if that's my call to really make, > since I lack the statistical data to know who would be affected, and in what > ways (i.e., do they have alternative methods, such as MIPS-II, etc..). Workarounds should be as cheap as possible maintenance-wise. My vote is for requiring people in the need to use broken R10k revisions to choose a compatible ISA. It actually makes sense to use 64-bit software on these systems implying at least MIPS III, which is also another argument not to try to bend backwards and support MIPS I with R10k workarounds. Maciej
