> On 1 Dec 2019, at 20:05, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/30/19 9:45 AM, Alex Bennée wrote:
>> This is cleaner than poking memory directly and will make later
>> clean-ups easier.
>> Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.ben...@linaro.org>
>> ---
>> v2
>> - make sure we pass hi/lo correctly as quads are stored in LE order
>> ---
>> target/arm/helper.c | 18 +++++++-----------
>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>> diff --git a/target/arm/helper.c b/target/arm/helper.c
>> index 0bf8f53d4b8..0ac950d6c71 100644
>> --- a/target/arm/helper.c
>> +++ b/target/arm/helper.c
>> @@ -105,21 +105,17 @@ static int aarch64_fpu_gdb_get_reg(CPUARMState *env,
>> uint8_t *buf, int reg)
>> {
>> switch (reg) {
>> case 0 ... 31:
>> - /* 128 bit FP register */
>> - {
>> - uint64_t *q = aa64_vfp_qreg(env, reg);
>> - stq_le_p(buf, q[0]);
>> - stq_le_p(buf + 8, q[1]);
>> - return 16;
>> - }
>> + {
>> + /* 128 bit FP register - quads are in LE order */
>
> Oh, this was always wrong on BE :(
Am I right in thinking this patch correctly matches the SVE BE changes from
June?
Specifically, this patch:
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2019-June/657826.html
Alan.
>
> Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com>
>
>> + uint64_t *q = aa64_vfp_qreg(env, reg);
>> + return gdb_get_reg128(buf, q[1], q[0]);
>> + }
>> case 32:
>> /* FPSR */
>> - stl_p(buf, vfp_get_fpsr(env));
>> - return 4;
>> + return gdb_get_reg32(buf, vfp_get_fpsr(env));
>> case 33:
>> /* FPCR */
>> - stl_p(buf, vfp_get_fpcr(env));
>> - return 4;
>> + return gdb_get_reg32(buf,vfp_get_fpcr(env));
>> default:
>> return 0;
>> }
