On Tue, 2015-07-21 at 07:39 +0100, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 07/21/2015 07:33 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Tue, 2015-07-21 at 07:27 +0100, Richard Henderson wrote:
> >> On 07/21/2015 06:19 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >>> + /* Clear the non-page, non-alignment bits from the address */
> >>> if (TCG_TARGET_REG_BITS == 32 || TARGET_LONG_BITS == 32) {
> >>> + /* We don't support unaligned accesses on 32-bits, preserve
> >>> + * the bottom bits and thus trigger a comparison failure on
> >>> + * unaligned accesses
> >>> + */
> >>> tcg_out_rlw(s, RLWINM, TCG_REG_R0, addrlo, 0,
> >>> (32 - s_bits) & 31, 31 - TARGET_PAGE_BITS);
> >>
> >> Why don't you support this unaligned acess with 32-bit guests?
> >
> > No reason, I just didn't get to do it yet. It's possible, I was just
> > lazy :-) It also adds one instruction. On 64-bit we always have 2
> > instructions anyway so it wasn't adding any overhead really, on 32-bit
> > we get away with a single rlwinm, while adding the unaligned support
> > would make it an addi + rlwinm.
>
> Ah, ok. I wondered if some older 32-bit host ppc didn't allow it, and the
> 32-bit guest paid the price. Anyway,
No, most implementations support unaligned accesses in common cases. I
think the worst embedded variants might trap when crossing page
boundaries but that's about it. I don't think we bother emulating
this though.
> Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson <r...@twiddle.net>
Thanks.
Cheers,
Ben.
>
> r~
