Am 13.06.2011 um 15:31 schrieb Alexander Graf:
On 13.06.2011, at 12:13, Andreas Färber wrote:
+ /* Memory forced */
+ ctx->raddr = ((sr & 0xF) << 28) | (eaddr & 0x0FFFFFFF);
This is exactly the same as ctx->raddr = eaddr, no?
No, not that I see. The manual is explicit about this calculation:
"the processor [...] generates a memory access
with the physical address specified by the lowest-order four bits in
the segment register
(SR[28–31]) concatenated with LA4–LA31." (6-63 / 6.10.4)
That matches figure 6-26 on the following page, and I've added a
similar comment in v2.
I see no compelling reason why the lower nibble of the SR should
always match the SR#, the upper nibble of eaddr.
Andreas
