On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 5:51 PM, Mark Cave-Ayland
<mark.cave-ayl...@ilande.co.uk> wrote:
> On 24/06/16 13:34, Artyom Tarasenko wrote:
>
>> Signed-off-by: Artyom Tarasenko <atar4q...@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> target-sparc/translate.c | 5 ++++-
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/target-sparc/translate.c b/target-sparc/translate.c
>> index 5111cf0..065326c 100644
>> --- a/target-sparc/translate.c
>> +++ b/target-sparc/translate.c
>> @@ -5187,12 +5187,15 @@ printf("ops, illegal rdhpr\n");
>> case 0xd: /* ldstub -- XXX: should be atomically */
>> {
>> TCGv r_const;
>> + TCGv tmp = tcg_temp_new();
>>
>> gen_address_mask(dc, cpu_addr);
>> - tcg_gen_qemu_ld8u(cpu_val, cpu_addr,
>> dc->mem_idx);
>> + tcg_gen_qemu_ld8u(tmp, cpu_addr, dc->mem_idx);
>> r_const = tcg_const_tl(0xff);
>> tcg_gen_qemu_st8(r_const, cpu_addr, dc->mem_idx);
>> + tcg_gen_mov_tl(cpu_val, tmp);
>> tcg_temp_free(r_const);
>> + tcg_temp_free(tmp);
>> }
>> break;
>> case 0x0f:
>>
>
> Looks like you beat me to it - I can confirm that this fixes the issue here
> for me. Whilst testing I noticed another regression under qemu-system-sparc,
> however bisection reveals that this isn't caused by a SPARC-specific patch
> (and can be followed up separately) so:
>
> Tested-by: Mark Cave-Ayland <mark.cave-ayl...@ilande.co.uk>
>
Good. Then we can route it via your tree. (With Richard's Reviewed-by)
I'm still worried why it didn't hit us before.
Artyom
--
Regards,
Artyom Tarasenko
SPARC and PPC PReP under qemu blog: http://tyom.blogspot.com/search/label/qemu
