On 11/15/19 6:29 PM, Alex Bennée wrote:
> +++ b/target/arm/helper.c
> @@ -47,30 +47,27 @@ static bool get_phys_addr_lpae(CPUARMState *env,
> target_ulong address,
>
> static void switch_mode(CPUARMState *env, int mode);
>
> -static int vfp_gdb_get_reg(CPUARMState *env, uint8_t *buf, int reg)
> +static int vfp_gdb_get_reg(CPUARMState *env, GByteArray *buf, int reg)
> {
> int nregs;
>
> /* VFP data registers are always little-endian. */
> nregs = arm_feature(env, ARM_FEATURE_VFP3) ? 32 : 16;
> if (reg < nregs) {
> - stq_le_p(buf, *aa32_vfp_dreg(env, reg));
> - return 8;
> + return gdb_get_reg64(buf, *aa32_vfp_dreg(env, reg));
> }
> if (arm_feature(env, ARM_FEATURE_NEON)) {
> /* Aliases for Q regs. */
> nregs += 16;
> if (reg < nregs) {
> uint64_t *q = aa32_vfp_qreg(env, reg - 32);
> - stq_le_p(buf, q[0]);
> - stq_le_p(buf + 8, q[1]);
> - return 16;
> + return gdb_get_reg128(buf, q[0], q[1]);
> }
Mostly ok, except for this change, which has the same endianness problem that
the other ARM change did. Why is this not done in patch 6 with the other?
r~
