Am Thu, 9 Feb 2012 11:26:09 +1100
schrieb David Gibson <d...@au1.ibm.com>:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 02:27:35PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > Am Wed, 8 Feb 2012 21:48:40 +1100
> > schrieb David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au>:
> >
> > > On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 10:54:21AM +0400, malc wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 8 Feb 2012, David Gibson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > From: Thomas Huth <th...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > These instructions for loading and storing byte-swapped 64-bit values
> > > > > have
> > > > > been introduced in PowerISA 2.06.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <th...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > target-ppc/translate.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > 1 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > I seem to recall that POWER5 machine i had access to didn't have
> > > > ld/stdbrx while CBE did have it (or was it the other way around?)
> > > > so question is - is PPC_64B sufficient?
> > >
> > > Ah, I think it's not. I think I spotted that before, but then forgot
> > > about it. Thanks for the reminder.
> >
> > Maybe it's a better idea to use PPC_64BX here? ... but that flag seems
> > to be missing in POWERPC_INSNS_POWER7... David, could PPC_64BX also be
> > included in that flag list?
>
> Um.. what exactly do you mean by 64BX?
>
There is a definition in target-ppc/cpu.h:
/* New 64 bits extensions (PowerPC 2.0x) */
PPC_64BX = 0x0000000000000040ULL,
According to the comment, I thought the PPC_64BX might be designed
for new 64-bit instructions?
Thomas
