On Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 22:59:03 +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 21 February 2011 23:19, Adam Lackorzynski <a...@os.inf.tu-dresden.de> > wrote: > > diff --git a/target-arm/machine.c b/target-arm/machine.c > > index 3925d3a..a18b7dc 100644 > > --- a/target-arm/machine.c > > +++ b/target-arm/machine.c > > @@ -41,6 +41,7 @@ void cpu_save(QEMUFile *f, void *opaque) > > } > > qemu_put_be32(f, env->cp15.c6_insn); > > qemu_put_be32(f, env->cp15.c6_data); > > + qemu_put_be32(f, env->cp15.c7_par); > > qemu_put_be32(f, env->cp15.c9_insn); > > qemu_put_be32(f, env->cp15.c9_data); > > qemu_put_be32(f, env->cp15.c13_fcse); > > @@ -148,6 +149,7 @@ int cpu_load(QEMUFile *f, void *opaque, int version_id) > > } > > env->cp15.c6_insn = qemu_get_be32(f); > > env->cp15.c6_data = qemu_get_be32(f); > > + env->cp15.c7_par = qemu_get_be32(f); > > env->cp15.c9_insn = qemu_get_be32(f); > > env->cp15.c9_data = qemu_get_be32(f); > > env->cp15.c13_fcse = qemu_get_be32(f); > > Comments on another patch left me wondering whether we should > be bumping a version number here somewhere[*], since we're changing > the load/store state format by adding another field. Anybody > care to agree/disagree?
Looks like a reasonable thing to do. I'll add it to my patch set. Adam -- Adam a...@os.inf.tu-dresden.de Lackorzynski http://os.inf.tu-dresden.de/~adam/
