On 06/23/2016 03:03 AM, Sergey Sorokin wrote:
So what's wrong in this part of the patch?
I think I just misread it.
22.06.2016, 20:12, "Richard Henderson" <r...@twiddle.net>:
On 06/22/2016 09:30 AM, Sergey Sorokin wrote:
diff --git a/tcg/ppc/tcg-target.inc.c b/tcg/ppc/tcg-target.inc.c
index da10052..3dc38fa 100644
--- a/tcg/ppc/tcg-target.inc.c
+++ b/tcg/ppc/tcg-target.inc.c
@@ -1399,6 +1399,7 @@ static TCGReg tcg_out_tlb_read(TCGContext *s,
TCGMemOp opc,
int add_off = offsetof(CPUArchState, tlb_table[mem_index][0].addend);
TCGReg base = TCG_AREG0;
TCGMemOp s_bits = opc & MO_SIZE;
+ int a_bits = get_alignment_bits(opc);
/* Extract the page index, shifted into place for tlb index. */
if (TCG_TARGET_REG_BITS == 64) {
@@ -1456,14 +1457,21 @@ static TCGReg tcg_out_tlb_read(TCGContext *s,
TCGMemOp opc,
* the bottom bits and thus trigger a comparison failure on
* unaligned accesses
*/
+ if (a_bits > 0) {
+ tcg_debug_assert((((1 << a_bits) - 1) & TLB_FLAGS_MASK) == 0);
+ } else {
+ a_bits = s_bits;
+ }
tcg_out_rlw(s, RLWINM, TCG_REG_R0, addrlo, 0,
+ (32 - a_bits) & 31, 31 - TARGET_PAGE_BITS);
ppc32 can certainly support over-alignment, just like every other target. It's
just that there are some 32-bit parts that don't support unaligned accesses.
I don't understand your point here.
ppc32 can support a_bits > s_bits.
r~
