Re: [PATCH 01/20] target/sparc: Introduce cpu_put_psr_icc

[Richard Henderson]

On 10/19/23 07:11, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
      uint32_t psr;
      __get_user(psr, &regs->psr);
-    env->psr = (psr & PSR_ICC) | (env->psr & ~PSR_ICC);

This keeps the non-PSR_ICC fields from env->psr, ...

+    cpu_put_psr_icc(env, psr);
  #endif
      /* Note that pc and npc are handled in the caller. */
diff --git a/target/sparc/win_helper.c b/target/sparc/win_helper.c
index 3a7c0ff943..bf2c90c780 100644
--- a/target/sparc/win_helper.c
+++ b/target/sparc/win_helper.c
@@ -67,9 +67,14 @@ target_ulong cpu_get_psr(CPUSPARCState *env)
  #endif
  }
-void cpu_put_psr_raw(CPUSPARCState *env, target_ulong val)
+void cpu_put_psr_icc(CPUSPARCState *env, target_ulong val)
  {
      env->psr = val & PSR_ICC;

... while this zeroes the non-PSR_ICC fields. Is that expected?

The only field in env->psr is ICC.
The other fields are in env->psr{s,ps,et,pil,ef}.

This is a bit of old linux-user confusion, which apparently presumed more.
Anyway, the situation is improved with this patch, and further in the next by removing 
"env->psr" entirely.


r~


PS: The handling of PSR could probably be cleaned up.  I don't think there is a real need 
for the fields to be split apart like this.  A test of e.g. (env->psr & PSR_S) should be 
more or less identical in performance to (env->psrs != 0).  It's only the PSR_ICC 
subfields that get heavy use within translation.