On 2021/11/10 下午10:40, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 11/10/21 2:44 PM, LIU Zhiwei wrote:
I suspect the extend should come before the pointer mask and not
after, but this is is a weakness in the current RVJ spec that it
does not specify how the extension interacts with UXL. (The reverse
ordering would allow a 64-bit os to place a 32-bit application at a
base address above 4gb, which could allow address separation without
paging enabled.)
Agree. Should we adjust currently, or just add a TODO comment here?
Let's add a todo comment for sure.
I do think we should merge gen_pm_adjust_address into this function
so that we only create one new temporary.
I think custom instructions will be added in the future. And possibly
there will be some custom load/store instructions.
If we merge gen_pm_adjust_address, we may have to split it once
again at that time.
I don't think so. We're simply having one function to compute a
canonical address from a register plus offset plus mods.
Also, patch 10 combines pm-mask with zero-extension, so we shouldn't
need to do both here. The checks should be combined like
tcg_gen_addi_tl(addr, src1, imm);
if (ctx->pm_enabled) {
tcg_gen_and_tl(addr, addr, pm_mask);
tcg_gen_or_tl(addr, addr, pm_base);
} else if (get_xl(ctx) == MXL_RV32) {
tcg_gen_ext32u_tl(addr, addr);
}
and could possibly be extended to
if (ctx->pm_mask_enabled) {
tcg_gen_and_tl(addr, addr, pm_mask);
} else if (get_xl(ctx) == MXL_RV32) {
tcg_gen_ext32u_tl(addr, addr);
}
if (ctx->pm_base_enabled) {
tcg_gen_or_tl(addr, addr, pm_base);
}
Can we just use
tcg_gen_and_tl(addr, addr, pm_mask);
tcg_gen_or_tl(addr, addr, pm_base);
Therefore we can remove all PM flags in TB_FLAGS.
Thanks,
Zhiwei
with one more bit in TB_FLAGS, e.g.
if (env->cur_pm_mask < (xl == MVL_RV32 ? UINT32_MAX : UINT64_MAX)) {
flags = FIELD_DP32(flags, TB_FLAGS, PM_MASK_ENABLED, 1);
}
if (env->cur_pm_base != 0) {
flags = FIELD_DP32(flags, TB_FLAGS, PM_BASE_ENABLED, 1);
}
r~