On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 02:33:36PM -0600, Tom Musta wrote: > On 12/12/2013 9:08 AM, Tom Musta wrote: > > On 12/10/2013 10:57 PM, Paul Mackerras wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 02:54:40PM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote: > > > >>> This breaks 32-bit big-endian (as well as making the code longer and > >>> more complex). > >> > >> And in fact none of this code will get executed in little-endian mode > >> anyway, since we still have this in the middle of emulate_step(): > >> > >> /* > >> * Following cases are for loads and stores, so bail out > >> * if we're in little-endian mode. > >> */ > >> if (regs->msr & MSR_LE) > >> return 0; > >> > >> Paul. > >> > > > > See patch 1/3 to explain how it becomes relevant in LE. > > > > I will take another look at the change. > > > > It appears that patch 1/3 never got picked up, even though I thought Ben & I > had worked through that. > > And I agree that the code could be simpler. I will work up a patch to address > these two issues.
The other thing that's important for us to know is how you are testing these changes. For something like this I'd like to see a description of the tests you have done in the commit message. I have been hacking on sstep.c pretty heavily myself recently, so we will need to coordinate on the changes. Paul. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
