On 3/3/25 10:39, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
Hi Richard,
On 24/2/25 18:14, Richard Henderson wrote:
So far, this is only read-as-written.
Resolves: https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/issues/2497
Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <richard.hender...@linaro.org>
---
target/m68k/cpu.h | 1 +
target/m68k/cpu.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++++-
target/m68k/helper.c | 14 ++++++++------
target/m68k/translate.c | 3 ++-
4 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/target/m68k/helper.c b/target/m68k/helper.c
index 6e3bb96762..bc787cbf05 100644
--- a/target/m68k/helper.c
+++ b/target/m68k/helper.c
@@ -45,8 +45,8 @@ static int cf_fpu_gdb_get_reg(CPUState *cs, GByteArray
*mem_buf, int n)
return gdb_get_reg32(mem_buf, env->fpcr);
case 9: /* fpstatus */
return gdb_get_reg32(mem_buf, env->fpsr);
- case 10: /* fpiar, not implemented */
- return gdb_get_reg32(mem_buf, 0);
+ case 10: /* fpiar */
+ return gdb_get_reg32(mem_buf, env->fpiar);
}
return 0;
}
@@ -69,7 +69,8 @@ static int cf_fpu_gdb_set_reg(CPUState *cs, uint8_t *mem_buf,
int n)
case 9: /* fpstatus */
env->fpsr = ldl_be_p(mem_buf);
return 4;
- case 10: /* fpiar, not implemented */
+ case 10: /* fpiar */
+ env->fpiar = ldl_p(mem_buf);
Should we consider target endianness?
I am. Are you suggesting that the TARGET_BIG_ENDIAN shorthand be eliminated entirely,
even from target-specific code?
r~
